The fact of the matter, Shayne, is that Knowledge is Power. And ny keeping gay men in ignorance about the fact that HIV remains a killer disease, AIDS orgs are disempowering gay men and encouraging them towards risky types of behaviour. Ignorance kills, and the UK isn't the only country where AIDS orgs have rebranded it a manageable condition with which you can live a healthy, normal life. It's a fact. Ignorance, of course, also makes a lot of money for these orgs because their business plan is based on gay men becoming infected with HIV (many in ignorance, or course), and the drugs manufacturers continue to fund them so long as they ensure a continuous flow of customers. Call it sick, twisted, what you will, but the failure of HIV prevention in most Western countries can be pin-pointed to the systematic dumbing down of HIV and the deliberate agenda to keep gay men ignorant about its consequences.

This is so true, Shayne Chester.

What Sydney AIDS Inc. networks are attempting to hush up is the appalling lack of safe sex in MSM. Those professional networks gain from ignorance and continue to promote ignorance for their own gain.

There have been several notable cases of banning/gagging of voices from Australian gay discussion forums, in order to protect advertising AIDS bodies. www.samesame.com.au is one such censorious site protecting the AIDS orgs paying it to maintain community ignorance.

As you can see by looking at the www.samesame.com.au site, some posters have been permanently banned for daring to speak uncomfortable facts about AIDS orgs advertisers.

As a follow-up to "Marcus says: December 5th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

..take a look at this thread which is currently ongoing in Sydney ...two Sydney bystanders are fighting for the truth and supporting their arguments with corroborative data singlehandedly against an onslaught of rabid HIV sector trolls who are using the same deflective and intimidatory tactics to thwart all opposing viewpoints. "

I was one of those two pointing out the lies from the desk of the AIDS Council, published as news on that site. This month I made a long submission to both state and federal MP's calling for the dissolution of our AIDS Council so that an independent entity committed to HIV and community education be funded. This evening, Xmas eve, I received a defamatory email from the site, notifying me of a lifetime ban.

Of course, anyone can easily change their IP address with their ISP or by IP Proxy, but subterfuge has never interested me. Unlike the AIDS Council staff that regularly patrol these forums, I always put my real name and face to my words.

I was surprised to often be asked, "if you have no respect for http://www.samesame.com.au, then why are you on here ?" It is to correct the lies, often harmful to my own community. WE have been 'keeping the bitches honest,' and by now, it will have become apparent to all but the most closed-minded, the true nature of samesame (or lamelame as it is known among the cognoscenti.) It's called 'working the media' to get the truth out there and despite the fact that the ONLY threads you ever locked were those concerning HIV education, I think we did a bloody good job.

Anyway, next year, I will be far too busy pulling acon to pieces to bother with Dollyonline.

Merry Xmas everyone!

My God, had Alastair Diwling factored these figures into today's pre-Budget speech? Repair HIV prevention and he could reduce half of Britains debt just like that!!

Don't blame gay men (nor for that matter any of the people living with HIV and AIDS) for the cost of HIV medication. The prices are set by the pill-makers, not the pill-takers, so look to the pharmaceutical companies if you want someone to blame for the financial cost of HIV medication. If, as you say, the drug companies are making BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of pounds for drugs which would have cost them maybe a few hundred MILLION to research and develop (and a matter of pence per dose to produce), then they're the ones that should reduce their prices... And your sums fail to take in account that the prices of all drugs drop massively once patents expire, with the introduction of generic equivalents, etc. HIV meds will, In the future, cost no more to produce than generic analgesics, antihistamines, 'viagra', etc, today.

I just did a rough calculation (prepare to be shocked).

It costs 17000 quid to treat one person with hiv for one year, therefor over a 20 year lifespan on meds he/she will cost the state 340000 pounds.

Assuming all 2700 of the gay men diagnosed hiv last year spend 20 years of their lifes on meds, that adds up to close to a breath-taking one billion smackers.

Over the last five years when the hiv rate has broken the 2,500 mark each year, this comes at a cost of close to FIVE BILLION POUNDS to the tax payer.

An estimated 40,000 gay men are diagnosed hiv+ today,and if the hiv charities are to be believed a further 12,000 (one in four of all gay men infected) don't know they have it. The total cost of treating all these men in the next 20-30 years will be, wait for it......

SEVENTEEN AND A HALF BILLION POUNDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The failure of hiv prevention aimed at the gay community over the last decade, during which period diagnosed hiv has doubled, is a financial as well as a human catastrophe.

More to the point, it is quite clear that the billions that are needed to treat gay men already infected for the rest of their lifes is simply not there. The government is scrambling around to save the odd billion here, the odd billion there as it is. What the hell is going to happen when the penny drops and the true cost of a decade of highly flawed HIV ad campaigns hits the fan?

KER-CHING..........

Here's a simple question, Nick. Where is the campaign or product by which acon claims such miraculous results? Is it the Glam Reaper campaign, with a drag queen bowling a disco ball, dolly boys in angel wings sucking lollipops and so on, that is supposed to make us aware of the grim truth about HIV? Because, I can assure you as an HIV+ man I do not find HIV glamorous. Or is it their latest effort, feature coloured condoms on bananas? If I want to see bananas in condom pajamas, I'll swicth on childrens' TV, HIV and safe sex are not trivial either. The acon campaigns are universally ridiculed as being less effective than a chocolate teapot, as you would know.

Perhaps we should look at what this constant, "numbers of new HIV infections
have remained stable or decreased over the last 10 years" actually means. The HIV infections for New South Wales, as reported in the NSW Department of Health's annual report, are... 1996 / 447, 1997 / 421, 1998 / 402, 1999 / 373, 2000 / 352, 2001 / 338, 2002 / 389...etc. 324 new HIV notifications in 2008 means that about one new person acquires HIV every day in NSW. The rates are about the same as they were ten years ago after 'adjustments' are made. From acon's own website: "The decrease recorded in total number of infections is partially due to enhanced analysis of the surveillance data ...and so cannot be regarded as a real decrease." That's not something to crow about.

In fact, it's an appalling show of negligence, reflected in the fact that of about $10 in income, acon spends only about $600k on goods and services. $7 million in wages goes to staff who seem too preoccupied with every triviality you can think of, from releasing designer clothing to holding 'cottaging' and sex club ettiquette' workshops, to bother much with HIV prevention or providing services for the HIV+.

And one last thing, as you are obviously an employee of acon, is it not a professional protocol to declare your interest? Its tiresome to see AIDS Industry employees paid to pop up anonymously in online forums like this all over the world to snipe at those who only wish for the realities of HIV to be known.

"post-HIV youth" writes:

"Firstly, what do you mean by an “AIDS” sector? There is simply no such thing."

Three paragraphs later he writes:

"It’s really worrying that such a crucial topic is being hijacked by a group of very ill-informed individuals who seem hell-bent on making a poorly thought out attack on a SECTOR..."

Then he asks for evidence that the GMFA and THT receive pharma funding. Well Matthew Hodson admits to as much in his interview, and I would point him to THT's 2008/9 Trustees Report:

http://www.tht.org.uk/binarylibrary/trusteesrep...

On page 42 he will find a number of pharmaceutical companies acknowledged for their undisclosed corporate donations. He will also find contained in the report that of around £16,000,000 income £12,500,000 was provided by the Government and £9,000,000 (nearly 60p.c.) went on salaried costs.

"post-HIV youth" then says "It’s really worrying that such a crucial topic is being hijacked by a group of very ill-informed individuals who seem hell-bent on making a poorly thought out attack on a sector which, far from being “in the hands of the drug companies” is under funded and under-resourced."

Perhaps he would now like to retract that statement, and provide some actual examples to back up his claim that the Soho Live survey "doesn’t stand up to even very basic scientific scrutiny." It occurs to me that the only people hijacking this topic are those as misinformed as "post-HIV youth" evidently is with regard to the workings of the HIV sector and those within who don't know how to admit to their mistakes and are in unflinching denial mode.

Regarding Anon's post it has occurred to me that we are seeing almost daily reports of extreme neglect in public services that are committed to customer care. I read recently that some NHS trusts are now letting otherwise healthy older patients admitted to hospital with curable ailments to die rather than give them the treatment they need to live for a few more years, and more and more patients with terminal conditions are being denied the life-saving medications they need due to the NHS advisory body, PACE, deciding they are too expensive. The case of Baby P has been well highlighted and I, personally, would shudder at the thought of my parents being admitted to a state-run care home.

I do wonder how conditions in state-run organisations are being allowed to deteriorate to such an extent, despite the billions that have been spent on the NHS since New Labour came to power, much of which has been wasted on bureaucracy. Recently Panorama ran a special based on a whistle-blower's account of how the hospital she worked in was failing patients. It does seem to be an issue being talked about more and more these days, and there is a tangible sense that a creeping malaise has seeped into our care institutions. This could only occur is unconscionable people were at the helm so maybe these psychological profiling tests do have a lot to answer for.

However I very much doubt this has anything to do with the failing of the HIV sector. The problems that exist there are down to people like Matthew at GMFA, and Lisa Power and Nick Partridge at THT, who have simply been there too long and consider their positions a career of life but who have long since run out of ideas and lost sight of the bigger picture. A clean sweep and new blood is desperately needed to reverse the decline within these organisations, and THT must relinquish HIV prevention altogether to avoid a direct conflict of interest with its role as an HIV services provider.

So anon above is saying that HIV charities require "potential staffmembers to undertake psychometric testing to determine a number of characteristics, not least whether or not participants feel indifferent and are lacking in empathy towards others. People who reveal a total absence of conscience are the type of people who would step over someone dying in the street rather than stop to help, and it is this mindset that public bodies and large corporations with high levels of public neglect and corruption appoint, safe in the knowledge that no one will speak out against its malpractises."
And what role do the Lizard people have in this?
This is just crazy bollocks.

Do get to the point Ford and stop beating about the bush and talking in riddles. WHAT are you trying to say man???

Anon's post is another example of someone who sounds authoritative but whose claims are based on scant evidence or it seems experience.

Firstly, several people have mentioned NLP. Even a basic wikipedia search will tell you that there is a lack of empirical research or evidence to support the the core aspects of NLP or the claim that NLP is effective. NLP is what has made Paul McKenna extremely rich but no self-respecting psychologist would consider based on sound science.

Secondly, anon talks about current HIV prevention campaigns utilising a standard textbook based approach. Modern HIV prevention is far from it. Modern programmes recognise the reality of the lives of those who live with HIV and the the complexities of sexual relationships. In contrast, the many calls for 'harder hitting campaigns' are straight out of a 1980s textbook. We do not live in 1985, people do not die like they used to from HIV and to spread a message of fear as many are demanding would be inaccurate let alone ineffective.

HIV charities realise this. Their campaigns realise that people don't make decisions about sex based on fear or on knowledge about how HIV is transmitted. Such knowledge plays very little role in making decisions about sexual behaviour. Modern HIV prevention programmes recognise the important role self-esteem, emotions, desire for intimacy and complex relationships play in decisions about sex.

Finally, anon attacks the NHS, social workers and public care homes, calling these institutions and those working for them selfish, deceitful and dangerous. The criticisms you raise, apart from sounding like an article from the daily mail are totally unrecognisable to anyone who as ever worked in a hospital or as a social worker or volunteered in a care home or for a charity. For the record, I do not work in HIV prevention but I have worked in hospitals and have volunteered for many charities. Not only are your remarks hugely disrespectful to the thousands who work tirelessly in such institutions but they also show a total lack of experience and understanding.

Pehaps Anon, william, marcus et al. are all experts: clinical psychologists counselling gay men in sexual health clinics and volunteering for HIV charities on the weekend. But somehow I suspect not.... While you all argue strongly and passionately, your remarks and view points are misrepresentation feeding off extreme ignorance.

Like I've said previously, go work in a hospital, a care home, volunteer for an HIV charity and see if your view remains the same.

Then again, you could just carry on as you are, misinformed and voting Tory in 2010....

My following summation of the HIV charity sector, based on the debates that have been raging on Homovision for some time, is based on inside knowledge of how public sector bodies react when under fire (due to this knowledge I am writing under an assumed identity for reasons that will soon be revealed).
Most public funded bodies misuse data and mislead people as to their competence to perform in the public interest. That is the nature of the beast. Anyone who has been following recent developments within the NHS (patients dying unnecessarily), social work (one kid a day dying of undected abuse on average) the scandalous neglect in public care homes and so on will be aware that an increasingly pernicious culture of customer neglect is developing in the UK, which is also reflected in the marked decline in the standard of HIV prevention strategies. Whenever the spotlight is shone onto public sector failings, those responsible always refuse to admit to their failings and it is extremely difficult to hold them to account due to the closed ranks mentality that ensues, and which is very much in evidence on this discussion board. The simple fact is that the HIV charity sector, like the public care bodies mentioned above, are playing an extremely dangerous and deceitful game with peoples' lives, and it has got to a critical point where people are demanding that changes are forced through to put, in the case of the HIV charity sector, the the health and well being of ordinary gay men ahead of the institutional selfishness of those who put their careers before the need to do the right thing.
But how can such institutions behave so counter-productively when it would involve all its workers being involved in a "conspiracy" to serve its own interests? Because such institutions and large corporations that work against the public interest invariably require potential staffmembers to undertake psychometric testing to determine a number of characteristics, not least whether or not participants feel indifferent and are lacking in empathy towards others. People who reveal a total absence of conscience are the type of people who would step over someone dying in the street rather than stop to help, and it is this mindset that public bodies and large corporations with high levels of public neglect and corruption appoint, safe in the knowledge that no one will speak out against its malpractises. Of course this process isn't perfect and occasionally a "whistle blower" will get a bout of conscience and break rank from the rest and spill the beans so top speak.
And so we have this ongoing sitiuation where the HIV charity sector and its supporters have pulled ranks to protect its reputation under an onslaught of public outrage and widespread criticism, and finds itself unable to satisfactorily defend itself, and instead is going round and round in circles repeating the same empty rhetoric while deflecting blow after blow. That is because the evidence is clearcut and irrefutable: HIV campaigns today are driving the epidemic, not preventing it - it is a fact backed up by the annual rate of diagnosed infections, and no amount of counter-argument from people like Matthew Hodson can alter that fact. The voices of those opposing the status quo that exists in gay men's health are raising their voices now because they sense that the time that we have to reverse the trend before HIV becomes the norm among gay men in the major cities is short. Quite simply, to ignore the obligation to act now and implement the necessary changes to prevent the ongoing, and unnecessary, misery and suffering and billions more spent on medications would result in a human catastrophe.
The problem with today's HIV campaigns is that they have long adopted a standard, predicatable textbook approach. Accusations that they are confusing and misleading and send out mixed messages are validated by numerous examples. Neuro linguistic programming, as a previous contributor to this thread has mentioned, is the manipulation of words designed to programme the subconscious with a secondary message. It is a device that has long been used in advertising to sell all manner of goods and services. Take the recent "THIVK" campaign, intended to encourage gay men to get tested. Embedded in the word "Think" is "HIV", so the message is "Think HIV". Thoughts shape our reality, so what this ad is subliminally saying is "think HIV into your life." Whether intentionally or not it is programming the observer with the notion that HIV is an inevitable consequence of being a gay man today.
Another ad doing the rounds right now is based around the "assumptions" that some gay men apparently make when deciding whether or not to use condoms. Apart from the fact that this is a very cumbersome way of pitching a message about the subculture of gay men this ad appears to be aimed at and the fact that it can easily be interpreted by some as a signal to fuck without condoms come what may, it also contains the downright irresponsible and tagline "No point in using condoms. All the lads here are positive," a green light for positive men not to use condoms and be open to contracting mutant strains of the HIV virus and other diseases such as syphilis which an already compromised immune system may find impossible to contend with. All HIV campaigns and leaflets today avoid directly telling men to use condoms, instead suggesting that it might be a good idea, and strong efforts are consistently made to remove any sense of "blame" from HIV+ men, even when they fuck others without a condom. There is also a tendency, especially in the leaflet campaigns, to "construct" their reader as a gay man who is promiscuous and likely to take drugs, which implies that they expect their readers to take drugs.
Whether a conspiracy to encourage gay men to become HIV+ for the benefit of the service providers and drug companies does exist or not isn't for me to say, but from just these few examples I have provided there is a clearcut tendency to manipulate the lead message with the effect of transmitting an underlying message that is encouraging gay men, at least on a subliminal level, to indulge in behaviours that are more likely, not less likely, to lead to HIV infection.

Mike N. - Sorry my question has flumoxed you. I'll rephrase it.

I don't have HIV. I'm being fucked by a man with HIV. He's undiagnosed and not on meds. How much more likely am I to get infected if he cums in my arse compared to if he doesn''t?

Is the liklihood of transmission exactly the same, is it a bit more likely or is it much more likely?

A relevant posting on this thread concerning the withdrawal of both THT and GMFA's remit to provide HIV prevention campaigns appears to have been removed. The commissiong body within the NHS ceased funding the HIV sector for tthis purpose two years ago on the grounds that their campaigns were, to quote, "not working" (check out the gay presd aroubd December/January 2006/7. Instead it proposed one to one interventions at gay bars and a database to capture gay men's sex habits. At the time the gay media bandied together to demand the return of print campaigns and so preserve a lucrative revenue stream and the resulting furore saw the commissioning body backtrack but only THT, not GMFA, had its remit restored. If GMFA's HIV funding body itself and not just a so-called small select band of troublemakers declared it's campaigns a failure, how on earth can this charity remain in denial of it's shortcomings? It's failure is on public record for heaven's sake!

Hello Doctor Ford, Sigma Research academic, and welcome to the discussion. I have to confess that I am as flummoxed and confused by your question as I am by many of today's HIV campaigns. Maybe it's the sterile use of language or the word manipulation that your sector indulges in but you really have me totally lost! Sorry, but I'm off to bed!

Thanks Homovision for carrying this interview. And thanks Matthew for an informed, compassionate and honest responses. London should be proud to have an organisation for gay men's health founded on the values you communicate so well.

A question for Mike N. - I don't have HIV. I'm being raped without a condom by a casual sex partner. Should I risk being beaten up (or killed) to prevent him coming in me, or should I just lie still and let him finish by dumping his load in me?

Thanks for some insightful contributions Marcus. My incredulous disbelief at viewing the Acon prevention campaigns quickly turned to anger at the realization of more young lives being destroyed in the name of "glamming up" HIV. For Nick to even suggest GMFA would be so naive as to go this far off track is ludicrous. If they did it would be the final nail in it's coffin so keep your unhelpful advice to yourself Nick. While it is interesting to see the same arguments playing out overseas I think it is important to keep this debate UK focused. While I agree with most of Marcus's comments, I am strongly opposed to HIV being described as a "serious medical condition" by the GMFA. This is too simplistic a generalisation in much the same way as "a manageable condition" was bearing in mind that one man's wonder-combo therapy is another man's poison. The fact is that there are many "serious conditions" that are curable and not terminal and few that fall into HIV's league. Why can't people just tell the truth: HIV is an incurable terminal disease. It may not sound glam
but it would make many who are wantonly barebacking in ignorance think twice.

LOL, I just realised that the link I provided two postings ago is the sort of "HIV prevention at its best" campaign that Nick refers to as being effective in preventing infections in Sydney! Here it is again -

http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php...

Warhol would be spinning in his grave! Oh, and here's another acon example of "HIV prevention at its best (titter!). The "glam reaper" is a spin on the Australian "grim reaper" campaign of the 1980s that scared a generation into adopting safe sex practices -

http://www.acon.org.au/about-acon/campaigns/glam

So, according to acon, "HIV prevention at its best" is all about having a laugh at HIV and taking the piss out of those whose lives have been blighted by the virus. I guess that just goes to show the low level at which those running HIV prevention today operate. Just stick to trolling community forums in your own country for signs of dissent Nick, there's a good lad. Lord knows we have enough misinformation, subterfuge and obfuscation to deal with from our own HIV org shills without you butting in too.

Marcus, you quote passages such as:

“There is no question that the AIDS sector gets big handouts from the pharmaceutical giants"

Firstly, what do you mean by an "AIDS" sector? There is simply no such thing. There are many different charities who all work towards the goal of preventing HIV.

Secondly, what evidence do you have that any drug company gives money to GMFA or THT ? I wish they did - maybe then they'd be better funded, but they don't. Unless you have some kind of secret document market "TOP SECRET - HIV CONSPIRACY CAMPAIGN STAFF ONLY"

It's really worrying that such a crucial topic is being hijacked by a group of very ill-informed individuals who seem hell-bent on making a poorly thought out attack on a sector which, far from being "in the hands of the drug companies" is under funded and under-resourced.

It seems this is the problem when non-scientists attempt to do scientific research. While I applaud that Gary Leigh for attempting to actually do something about something he feels passionate about, his study doesn't stand up to even very basic scientific scrutiny.

Perhaps all those who have such strong criticisms should volunteer with one of these charities rather than demonising and shouting down all the hard work they do. I was incredibly impressed by Matthew Hodson's interview and I would love to volunteer with someone who is so obviously committed, eloquent and well-informed.

Stop all this hurtful, bashing of anyone who has decided to devote their working lives to improving the health of gay men and actually contribute something positive.

I would advise all of those who are truly concerned about the dire state of HIV prevention and equally the denial and obfuscations of those supporting the HIV sector to take a look at this thread which is currently ongoing in Sydney -

In it, two Sydney bystanders are fighting for the truth and supporting their arguments with corroborative data singlehandedly against an onslaught of rabid HIV sector trolls who are using the same deflective and intimidatory tactics to thwart all opposing viewpoints. Understand that in Sydney ignorance reigns and and it is this ignorance that the HIV sector feeds upon to advance its own agenda. One quote that sums it all up appears on page 7 -

http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php...

"Each new generation of young gay men is more ignorant with what HIV living entails, more flippant when it comes to discussing it and more blasé and cavalier about whether they catch it– as they are encouraged to be IMO. They then suck up valuable resources whining about having caught this erstwhile mysterious virus and not knowing how to deal with it, by which time they have to learn about it anyway because they’re stuck with it for life. If they'd known in the first place what they end up having no choice but to learn, a whole lot of seroconversions could be prevented. It’s the too comfy over-funded self-serving HIV prevention education bodies that are at fault here, first and foremost, for having only concentrated on preaching the condom use message with not enough reasoning or rationale as to why. They aren’t putting the health of gay communities first, but their own financing and careers. As long as the AIDS industry continues to thrive financially for as little initiative and effort as possible, that's all it cares about. This is why that industry stands apart, in profile, from the philanthropic fields. (It is arguably exploiting and perpetuating ignorance for its own end means, but that's a seperate debating point, really.) It nevertheless exploits the necessary taxpayer funding, it exploits the volunteers that do its lacky work while an overpaid underqualified elite core of prima donnas sit back smugly in overfaclititated abundance enjoying private catering, international travel junkets and queer VIP status, and it exploits and commodifies the HIV+ it has made way for by using them as begging bait for charity revenue and statistics for government funding eligibility. It's all rather parasitic IMO. The actual HIV+ are then more often treated with an air of contempt and disdain by some of these key orgs who treat them like nuisances and seemingly see them as the garbage element of our communities."

Deja vu?