| | |

News flash: AIDS not transmitted by chemically induced erections

What to do when research doesn’t provide the desired results? Conduct another study and change the parameters, of course.

According to the AIDS mantra, penetrative sex without latex is the highest risk behavior for transmission of the HI virus. Yet, a recent study from the University of Florida–a state with a greater than usual interest in the sexual behavior of seniors–claims that chemically induced erections do not lead to this very same risky behavior.

Researchers reviewed data from another study of more than 2,500 aging military veterans being conducted by the National Institutes of Health and the Veterans Health Administration. More than half of those participants are known to test positive on the Gallo antibody test (aka “AIDS” test).

Of the 28% of men who took prescription erectile drugs, such as Viagra and Cialis, ten percent engaged in “unsafe” sexual behavior, which about the same percentage reported among the men not taking drugs.

Despite the headline on the press release announcing the study’s findings: “UF study: Prescribed erectile dysfunction drugs don’t lead to risky sexual behavior”, there were some interesting caveats in the study itself. According to the report’s authors for example:

Men were more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior if they consumed alcohol over recommended amounts, had sex with other men or used cocaine.

This is a pretty important observation, considering the highest risk groups for positivity are MSM (men having sex with men), with drug users a close second. It is hard to understand (no pun intended) how inflating otherwise limp penises could not possibly increase transmission… unless, of course there is a flaw in the sexual transmission theory in the first place.

Back to the motive for conducting this particular study in the first place. The report goes out of its way to diss previous studies showing an increase of “risky” sexual behavior by those taking ED drugs because:

“Previous studies have linked erectile dysfunction drugs to risky sexual behavior, but nearly all of those studies have evaluated the behavior of men who obtained erectile dysfunction drugs without a prescription or were already known to be at high risk, such as men who have sex with men, or men who have substance abuse problems,” said Cook, an associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics in UF’s College of Public Health and Health Professions.

At about $20 per pill, it is understandable why men interested in ED drugs might bypass their physician and the local pharmacy, especially when they can be purchased online for a fraction of the retail cost.

Suggesting that studies of men “already known to be at high risk” are somehow less relevant also seems pretty disingenuous at best, considering the long-threatened heterosexual AIDS epidemic never materialized.

Look, I’m not all that concerned about whether men take Viagra or not. Hell, I’ve experimented with it myself. What is maddening is how pharmaceutical-based research is conducted and promoted to advance the market share and bottom lines of bigPharma, regardless of the outcome on the public’s health. This particular study just caught my eye as yet another blatant abuse intended to increase the number of prescriptions written by doctors (see screenshot of the Viagra ad on Mayo Clinic’s website below).

Funding sources and potential conflicts of interest were not reported in the press release, but will hopefully be available when it is published in Journal of General Internal Medicine next month.

Viagra for sale at Mayo Clinic

Wait... there's more!

  • 97

    97. That’s my latest CD4+ count, less than half the count from six weeks ago.

    That’s it. I have tried as many alternative treatments as I can think of to reverse the decline. I will be starting my third round of pharmaceutical ARVs as soon as I can get a prescription and fill it.

    This decision has been a long time coming, and in hindsight, I probably should have restarted a few months ago. There’s nothing magical about 97, or being below 100, but it’s as good a breaking point as any. I’ve long argued that there are two things to keep in mind about CD4 counts: one is the long-term trend; the other is single- or low double-digit counts.

  • Reduce AIDS drug toxicity and side effects

    I embarked on my third course of ARVs since 1998. For ten of the sixteen years I have been HIV-positive, I was able to manage well enough without ARVs and I continue to believe there is no reason for otherwise healthy HIV-positive—let alone negative—gay men to take these drugs. To those who want to wave a recent study about the benefits of early intervention in my face, I would ask them why they put so much faith in a science that has utterly failed us to date.

  • The truth about Truvada: PrEP won’t stop AIDS

    I’m willing to grant that gay men are entitled to use PrEP… provided they have access to all the information they need to make an informed decision. Informed consent has been a hallmark of the HIV and AIDS research and prevention efforts for three decades, and that shouldn’t be waived for the campaign favoring PrEP.

    Gay men deserve to know that all the claims for Truvada reducing the risk of acquiring HIV-positivity  are based on trials—funded by Gilead—that emphasized the importance of using condoms…

  • Confessions of a heretic AIDS dissident

    You might not know it from reading the comments left here on my blog, but there are more than a few AIDS dissidents who really don’t like how I think or what I write about.

    There’s a whole thread on a very popular Facebook page called “Rethinking AIDS”, discussing my open letter to Dora. Last I looked, that thread had nearly 100 comments, and very few of those comments were about Dora, Ruggiero or the defense of academic freedom.

    No, the gist of the thread was whether or not I am in “the AIDS Zone.” It seems that because I did not use “air quotes” around the term “HIV disease”, I’m not really an AIDS dissident. Others took issue with my post for daring to publish that some AIDS Rethinkers hold a very narrow view about “HIV” and “AIDS”, while others of us are merely “questioning” the whole affair. None of them chose to comment directly to me here.

    Some of the most visible and vocal Rethinkers seem intent on imposing their own “beliefs” (another loaded term that deserves quotes) on the entire movement. There has long been a tendency to try to impose a sort of litmus test to determine whether or not one is a true “AIDS dissident”.

    Since I first met the AIDS dissident community via the AIDS Myth Exposed forums—since renamed Questioning AIDS—several years ago, I’ve become aware of several of the various factions, distinctive personalities and divisions within that broad group. Now I’m finding it ironic just how guilty some of these people are at their own version of “bone-pointing”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *