Paul Burston says:

For the record Mark, I never once claimed that there was a ‘conspiracy’ – not in Attitude, not in Time Out and not in Boyz. I simply questioned why I thought prevention campaigns weren’t working. I also talked about self-esteem issues and stressed the need for clearer safer sex messages – both of which Matthew addresses in this interview.

Nick says:

I have always liked the work of GMFA, they are honest, clear and direct. Mr Hodson is right – the reasons some people have unsafe sex are really complicated and it is ridiculous to blame a relatively poorly funded not-for-profit org like GMFA.

William B says:

Watching this video I do get the impression that Matthew Hodson means well but he is simply unable to think outside of the narrow confines of the box he has been in since day one, and is extremely inconsistent with many of the points he makes. The Soho Survey never, as he claims, asked “who’s to blame” for anything. Rather, it sought to discover the influences that are encouraging people into unsafe sex and their attitudes around HIV, barebacking and the the effectiveness of safe(r) sex campaigns. Similarly, GMFA has routinely parroted the “HIV is a manageable condition with which you can enjoy a normal lifespan” (surely if 80 per cent less people are dying soon after infection then there is still a 1 in 5 chance that you will too?) and his outspoken stance on barebacking (until now) has been to oppose any form of censorship that affects gay men, and that also includes criticising those who indiscriminately bareback come what may.

Indeed it is GMFA policy to commission “risk minimization” campaigns as standard and to feature this approach in all aspects of their safer sex work because, as he says in the interview, different subsets of men need different messages. If that is the case then why do all of these different strategies end up in the same gay media thereby giving mixed messages and conflicting signals to the average gay man instead of being targeted directly at risk-specific groups? Surely just a generic “Condoms always” messages should appear in magazines like Boyz and QX? Simon could also have pushed a bit harder about who exactly GMFA test-runs these campaigns to because I can’t for the life of me imagine how many gay men they would have had to have been shown the “HiV Detector” campaigns, for example, before getting enough positive responses back, and I also would have asked more about the formulation of such campaigns and who actually gets the final say on them, particularly the wording which always appears to have been NLP-filtered.

I don’t think anyone has ever suggested that anyone at GMFA is overpaid as it is generally known it works on a tight budget. That question should be reserved for the executive committee at the THT. But overall a good job by Simon because I think it does highlight the weaknesses and inconsistencies within the GMFA while also showing Matthew Hodson to not quite be the four-headed hydra I had imagined him to be. Nevertheless he and his organisation are clearly devoid of new ideas and stuck in their ways and rigidly reject all adverse feedback, and when someone becomes immune to criticism then that is the time to head for the exit. Despite his declared passion for protecting gay men’s health, I do wonder why Matthew seems so content to stay in a position that attracts so much flak and which can offer no new challenges beyond what has gone before…

Kyle says:

Mr Hodson should be hugely commended for working so hard and with such dedication in the interest of gay men’s health. He is intelligent, rational and clearly passionate about what he is doing. The few detractors who are stirring things up online either out of lack of understanding (though you would think they should know better), or deliberate malice (even worse), should leave him and everyone who gives their time and energy to GMFA alone, so that the charity can get on with their valuable work of protecting gay men’s health. Me and many other gay men have benefitted from their campaigns, courses and FS over the years – keep up the excellent work GMFA!

Paul Burston says:

What exactly is a ‘professional gayer’, John? Surely someone who works for a gay men’s health charity is as much a ‘professional gayer’ as, say, a gay journalist?
I’m not entirely sure what your point is here – unless it’s to personally discredit anyone who dares question the received wisdom of the HIV sector. In which case, I think you do Matthew a great disservice. Your comment only helps perpetuate the idea that those in the HIV sector are unable to take the kind of scrutiny that anyone else in the public domain is regularly subjected to by those in the media.
And yes, I have plenty of friends – many of whom are positive and equally concerned about the state of HIV prevention in this country.
Or does one need to work for an HIV charity to be entitled to an opinion?

Marcus says:

Sorry to crash your party Mark C., Kyle, John, etc but just to let you know that the Evening Standard (yesterday’s edition) and author Paul Alexander are now in on the major human and financial disaster and scandal of the breakdown in HIV prevention. Seems you are getting a little outnumbered here.

From Paul Alexander’s blog:

“Barebacking and HIV infection are exploding, HIV prevention is a mess.

Please write to the Government to demand a ground-up reformulation of AIDS strategy in the UK.

The department of Health: dhmail@dh.gsi.gov.uk
The Lib Dem shadow health minister, Sandra Gidley: gidleys@parliament.uk
The Tory shadow health minister Andrew Landsley: lansleya@parliament.uk

Here’s my letter:

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you to complain about the catastrophic state of AIDS-prevention strategies amongst gay men in the UK.

HIV prevention is turning into the public health catastrophe of our time, and the fact that HIV prevention and support to those with HIV have been grouped together into “one stop” HIV shops has resulted in the prevention message becoming so diluted by messages intended to reassure those with HIV that it to all intents and purposes has entirely vanished.

Barebacking amongst gay men is becoming common place, and those who would promote it as fashionable or hot are today the only voices to be heard on the subject convincing many youngsters that the pro-bareback position has become a majority viewpoint. If something isn’t done many of these youngsters will go on to be infected by HIV causing suffering, death, and an explosion in public health budgets.

I’m writing to you today to beg for a ground-up reformulation of AIDS prevention strategy in the UK.

No longer must HIV prevention messages be decided by organisations whose job it is to reassure those who already have HIV.
Safe sex messages need to be hard hitting and simple. HIV is a dreadful disease that youngsters do not want to catch. The solution is to wear condoms.
Allowing those living with HIV to have a veto on strategies for HIV prevention is like asking those with lung cancer to authorise anti-tobacco policy. Though many are well-meaning, some are clearly are not experts, and the results of this fusion are catastrophic and plain to see.

Most of the main UK AIDS charities still do not even have a position on barebacking that even I can understand… as an example, on the current GMFA website one can currently read such risk reduction “advice” as “it’s best to have sex only with people whose HIV status you know” (seeing as results take three months to show up, I’m not quite sure how this works) “Withdraw before coming” is a good strategy the GMFA tells us. “Monitor your viral load” (now that’s really going to help prevent you spreading the disease) and even the fabulous, “Be a top if you’re HIV negative, or a bottom if you’re HIV positive.” Such advice is factually incorrect, crazy, criminal and absurd, and the fact that public money is being used to promote HIV risk reduction strategies that are anything but risk reducing is a monumental scandal.
It is no wonder that gay men are barebacking more and more and infection rates are exploding.

Please reformulate your AIDS policy – every day you do nothing brings a fresh round of HIV infection.

The situation requires:
- a national campaign of hard-hitting anti-bareback adverts to teach that barebacking is stupid and irresponsible, and those who practice it are stupid, crazy, or criminal.
- a national campaign reminding gay men of the hard truths of a life on HIV medication
- a national campaign explaining that the only way to have all the sex you want without risk is condom use.
- a requirement of government funded organisations that they separate the tasks of HIV prevention and support to those with HIV.
- withdrawal of funding from any organisation that does not have a clear and unambiguous anti-bareback strategy.
- results based funding where the funding organisations receive is linked not, as now, to an increase in the size of the epidemic, but in measured reductions of risk-taking in the target population.

Yours Sincerely.

Nick Alexander”

Make sure you get those important letters off everyone!!!

aido says:

Matthew, if you think those comments are misleading and damaging, read some of the posts after the last on Gary Leigh’s items here, about the alleged motivations and activities of GMFA and THT. http://www.homovision.tv/comment-fighting-hiv/
Libelous is the best way to describe them.

Marcus says:

SHOOT THE MESSENGER 1

Mark C. – “…At last, the truth comes out – and it’s not the conspiracy theory that everyone seems to bandy about, from the pages of Attitude, through to Boyz and Time Out.”

A conspiracy suggests that those opposed to HIV campaigns are a small group of people serving selfish interests to the detriment of the many. The fact is that most gay men want to see a different kind of HIV campaign today and the isolated group is in fact those within the HIV sector who for their own selfish reasons are fighting to maintain their cosy cartel and unfathomable ways rather than doing what is right for the community they purport to serve.

SHOOT THE MESSENGER 2

Matthew Hodson – “…Nick Alexander’s letter contains a number of allegations about GMFA which are totally untrue. To falsely claim that GMFA does not have a position on bareback sex is both irresponsible and damaging.”

GMFA has not had a publicly declared position on bareback sex up until this interview and has never spoken out against this pathogen-transmitting act. Of bareback porn M. Hodson has categorically and shamefully gone on record as saying “If gay men don’t want porn stars to risk their health, they should stop buying bareback porn” which is simply not the same as being critical of the trade. In QX magazine in April 2006 he and Will Nutland of the THT publicly declared their support for the right of positive men to meet in public places and indiscriminately bareback with each other but has never spoken out on a similar high-profile medium for the right of negative men to be effectively educated and protected from HIV.

SHOOT THE MESSENGER 3

“aidos” – “…read some of the posts after the last on Gary Leigh’s items here, about the alleged motivations and activities of GMFA and THT…Libelous is the best way to describe them.”

For something to be “libelous” it has to be untrue or be written with malicious intent. Try as I might, I have read Gary Leigh’s articles and they seem very reasonable to me, and the only intent I detect is a selfless desire to raise the alarm about the appalling failures in HIV prevention and to get others motivated in this cause, which he has succeeded in doing. So what IS the truth?

WILLIAM B

“…(M Hodson) and his organisation are clearly devoid of new ideas and stuck in their ways and rigidly reject all adverse feedback, and when someone becomes immune to criticism then that is the time to head for the exit.”

Well said, I couldn’t have put it better myself!

Nick says:

I would like to bring some evidence into this debate.

New South Wales (Australia), where I now live, is seen as an example of HIV prevention at its best. Sydney has bucked the trend apparent in all other “gay capitals” around the globe – numbers of new HIV infections have remained stable or decreased over the last 10 years. Researchers and activists from other Australian states, USA and all across Asia are looking at the NSW model and trying to copy it back home,

Maybe the UK HIV funders should look at this model and see what works about it, and try to replicate the best parts.

Interestingly, what they will see are community based organisations putting out a range of messages that are similar to those of GMFA. Sex positive, honest and direct. No scaremongering, just clear, research-based messages.

The biggest difference that people will see, if they look at the reasons for sucess, is that the Australian community organisations have stable funding and work in partnership with clinics, universities and each other. The funding for HIV prevention campaigns in Sydney dwarfs the funding available in London, and the population is much smaller.

Check out the work of acon http://www.acon.org.au/mens-health and positive life http://positivelife.org.au/campaigns

GMFA’s messages need to be seen by more men, in more places that they meet for sex; the style of mesaging has been proven to be effective. All the energy spent on bagging Mr Hodson and GMFA should be spent on campaining for more money to increase the reach of campaigns and the stability of the community organisations.

A number small number of Australians recently started an embittered campaign against acon, using some of the same arguments as above. The government looked at the evidence and is continuing to back the organisation and the approach of the HIV prevention organisations in the partnership.

Marcus says:

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?t=13172

“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?

Marcus says:

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?t=11869

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.

Ford Hickson says:

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?

Mike N. says:

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!

Anon says:

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. says:

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

Marcus says:

“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/trusteesreport/trusteesreport09.pdf

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.

Natch says:

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……….

Mike N. says:

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!!

Andrew Brougham says:

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. http://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 http://www.samesame.com.au site, some posters have been permanently banned for daring to speak uncomfortable facts about AIDS orgs advertisers.