Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Rethinking HIV Testing

This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not reflect the opinions of other authors at this site.

Timothy Kincaid

June 3rd, 2009

There is no good reason for any American becoming HIV positive today.

Which is not to say that there are not a lot of very understandable explanations why an individual might become infected. Social pressures, education, self perception, culture, diminished self worth, drugs and alcohol, and even trusting the word of a careless liar all play their part in the instances and circumstances that lead to poor choices and HIV infection.

And so infection rates stay consistently high in the gay community, and astronomical in some sub-populations. A study of HIV infection rates in Chicago found infection rates of over 17%* of gay men in that city. When looking at subgroups, the statistics become even more troubling:

Thirty percent of gay black men in Chicago tested positive, the study showed, while Hispanics and white men had rates of 12 percent and 11.3 percent, respectively.

A quarter of blacks aged 18-24 tested positive. More than 37 percent of blacks aged 25-34 – the highest of any age group – tested positive. The numbers are similar to national figures.

These are rates of infection that are simply unacceptable. And there’s no reason, no justification, for 37% of any ethnic or age group to be infected with a virus that is detectable and preventable. Considering the weath in this nation and the billions spent on bailing out bankers and car makers, that black gay men have rates this high raises hints of racism, homophobia, and elitism.

But there is an explanation, one that makes sense to me; these men didn’t know they were infected. Half of the infected gay men – and two-thirds of infected black men – were unaware of their HIV status.

Why?

Because they didn’t get tested. They were “worried about the result.”

I understand that worry about what it means to be HIV positive can be a strong disincentive to get tested. As long as you don’t know, you don’t have to deal with it.

But I think this report, like all those I’ve seen from the AIDS establishment, misses a component that is present with every HIV test that I or anyone I know has taken.

It isn’t just finding out whether one is HIV positive. It’s also going to some clinic (when they are open), filling out questionnaires, being grilled about the intimate details of your sex life, and then sitting in a waiting room where you are sure everyone is staring at you before being called into an office and being told by a total stranger whether you have a life-changing disease and, if so, reporting your name to the government.

It’s an unpleasant process. And frightening.

And I think it might be time to begin considering a change. I think it’s time to consider allowing people to test themselves in the privacy of their own home.

I know there are strong objections to this notion.

There is fear that inexperienced users will make mistakes and get false conclusions from improperly handled tests. There’s also fear that at-home tests would not be sensitive enough to assure accurate results or may be too expensive.

But the current oral swab tests are pretty darned easy. If some scared teenage girl who missed her period can pee on a swizzle, surely a gay guy can run a swab over his gums.

Also, the oral tests are over 99% accurate. And there’s little reason to think that they would be significantly less accurate in one’s home than in the clinic. And if we as a city, state or nation, can afford to pay the clinic administators to provide free testing, I’m sure we can come up with some scheme to get the prices on tests affordable by those who need them; it just makes economic sense.

I will concede that some guys will ignore the fact that these tests only tell you whether you were infected before a three month (or so) window. Some will assume that a negative test means “100% negative today”. But this is also a misconception that can occur in a clinic and can be mitigated by careful packaging.

But the biggie reason given for opposition to the public availability to HIV tests that one can take and home and get immediate results is that in a clinic setting those who test positive can get counseling.

I appreciate the need for counseling. I’ve even argued the merits of this approach.

But it’s not working, folks. There are still thousands of guys out there that have been infected and do not know it. And they are not going to come into your clinic to find out. And maybe, just maybe, it’s because they don’t want to be subjected to your counseling.

I have come to believe that many of these “I don’t know” guys might know their HIV status if they were able to anonymously purchase a little kit at the drugstore, take it home, and know the results in 20 minutes.

Yeah, some will freak out. And panic. And there won’t be a counselor in front of them.

But they will at least know their HIV status.

And if they were provided with the option to immediately call a hotline for information and counseling, they might do so. Or they could go to a clinic. Or go online.

But they would know. And there’s a very good chance that they would not then go out and infect someone else.

And this approach would be useful not only to unknown virus carriers, but to those they come in contact.

I think that many a gay guy – or black woman – would say, “Yes, I know you say you’re ‘clean’. But put this in on your gums and get comfortable because nothing is in going in anything for the next twenty minutes.”

It’s is bound to reduce infections better than the “baby, just trust me” method.

I don’t doubt the sincerity of those who wish to keep HIV testing in carefully controlled environments. And I am sure that some readers will object to this proposal, fearing that it would be a catastrophe.

And I’ll even grant that I may be wrong. Perhaps allowing people control over their own HIV testing would result in more problems than it solves. Maybe I’ve understated some concern or forgot some consideration.

But with infection rates – especially unknown infection rates – as high as they are, it’s time to look for new solutions. It’s time to ask the question. And it’s time to start the conversation over whether personal access to HIV tests could help bring down the incidences of unknown infections and help stop the spread of this disease.

– – –

* Though higher than our estimates of about 12% of gay men, this is consistent with our estimates. HIV infection rates in black gay men is far higher than other ethnic subgroups and with a population that is 37% African American, this skews the local average higher than the national average.

Addendum: This commentary does not attempt to address the specifics of the African-American community. I’m not qualified or adequately knowledgeable to address the exact circumstances leading to disparity in infection rates between ethic subgroups or to advance targeted solutions. Rather, this commentary seeks to start a discussion and new thinking about the lack of testing in infected populations of all races. For more information directed at HIV/AIDS in the African American community, see the Black AIDS Institute or the Minority AIDS Project.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Friend Of Jonathan
June 3rd, 2009 | LINK

“There is no good reason for any American becoming HIV positive today.”

Three words.

Condoms fail sometimes.

Becoming infected does not mean that one has engaged in risky sex, it means one has been exposed to the virus.

I’m surprised you fell for such a flawed source. A calculation of the number of people who have HIV/AIDS in a population is not the same as the rate of infection.

The majority of studies of rates of new infection – new cases per period of time – indicate that the rate of infection in gay men has stayed relatively stable, and lower than the failure rate of the most commonly available brand of condoms.

Higher rates of infection correlate with low income level, and the cheapest brands of condoms have the worst failure rates.

Ben in Oakland
June 3rd, 2009 | LINK

“Considering the weath in this nation and the billions spent on bailing out bankers and car makers, that black gay men have rates this high raises hints of racism, homophobia, and elitism.”

I would say mostly homophobia, and not just a hint. And black women bear the brunt of this. I seem to remember reading that black women have the highest rates of infection, primarily caused by drug use with infected needles and their men being on the down low.

A good example of how homophobia in the black community is not only bad for gay people, but bad for black people as well.

rusty
June 3rd, 2009 | LINK

I think some consideration should be placed on some of these possible factors:

1. Cost of home tests. . .although it seems relatively minor for some, a reliable test is $50. So if there is someway to reduce the cost of the in-home or clinic tests, many folk are reluctant to spend money on a test when faced with other expenditures; ie gas, food, rent, etc.

2. having worked in as a sexual health educator, many are quick to get tested(following an act of unprotected sex), not fully understanding that there is a window period. A false negative after unprotected sex can leave one with the illusion that they were ‘lucky’ or they have a ‘safe’ partner.

3. In those populations, black men and hispanic men who have sex with men do not identify as gay, and thus messaging to those populations have been ineffective and darn right troublesome. Encouraging testing also discourages those seeking testing because of unintentional labeling of ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’.

4. many of the same populations do not have access, financial means, (and have a fear) of medical care.

Home testing is a great alternative for folk in rural areas, for those who have received (and understand)the necessary pre and post counseling and for those who have unproteacted sex with multiple partners.

More education, both individually and through community programs on HIV and other sexual health related issues is a necessity, but until those who are hung up on the evils of sexual education stop impeding such dispersal of such information, these communities are going to have higher rates of infection.

David C.
June 3rd, 2009 | LINK

My bottom line on this:

1) Home testing should be available and inexpensive for those that want it. Inexpensive means around $10.00 US or less.

2) Test kits should come with easy to understand literature that will ensure correct self administration of the test. This should include basic pre- and post-counseling information.

3) An 800-like number should be available with appropriate automated handling to confirm the viability of the test kits themselves which should all have serial numbers.

4) A live person should be available to counsel anyone calling the 800 number with a valid test serial number.

5) Individuals that get a positive result should have the option of sending in a clean specimen for further testing and verification by more sophisticated laboratory means, perhaps for a nominal additional fee.

Regan DuCasse
June 3rd, 2009 | LINK

I have to disagree with the notion that black women become infected by gay men on the ‘down low’.
That’s actually a myth that is symptomatic of the ‘blame the gays’ meme and a rationale for hating gay men all over again.
No.
The reason for the high infection rates in black women is the same reason for single parenthood birthrates: unprotected sex with an infected STRAIGHT man.
Period.

It’s been all to easy to let straight black people get away with THEIR complicity in keeping from informed, being tested, not using protection and having multiple partners without the aforementioned precautions.

I know of a young black woman that became HIV positive while having an affair with a married man. Who infected who, doesn’t matter. He put his wife at risk. The young woman became pregnant.
AFTER she knew of her HIV status, she went on to have ANOTHER child by a former boyfriend who currently had a girlfriend.
She knowingly exposed two men (and two children) to HIV. And wasn’t married to either of these men, but also knew they were involved with other women.

THIS had nothing to do with gay men, and everything to do with being irresponsible and in defiance of precautions or honesty.

The gay community has enough responsibility to go around too. And of course MEN are more promiscuous then women. Always have been.

Believe me when I say that not nearly enough black gay men have or will sleep with black women to make them the reason for the level of infection rates there are among straight black women.

But I know plenty of straight black people who are ignorant of EVERYTHING regarding sexual health, orientation and so on.
Stands to reason that ignorance can spread LIKE a virus among vulnerable minorities and this is another example of that.

Ben in Oakland
June 3rd, 2009 | LINK

I stand corrected.

rusty
June 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Oh wait, it should also be considered that the campaigns to educate and empower are missing one of the targets. . .THE BIG B. . .remember that bisexual men do not shape themselves in the image of THE GAY. . .nor would any of them come even close to admitting it. THEY’RE NOT GAY. there are true bisexuals, folk who appreciate intimate sexual contact with either sex.

Yes there is a higher rate of the other STDs . . .Sexually Transmitted Infections. in the African American community. Lack of interest (and the ability to afford) condoms, higher expectations on women to be in contol of birth control, and poverty/lack of health care all contribute.

Then there is another little factor of the higher incidence 1 out of 10 of correctional institutionalization aka prison.

But back to the B thing. . .tis a very different life of the bisexual, and it is a very interesting world we live in where bisexuals exist in numbers that have yet to be collected.

MichaellaS
July 20th, 2009 | LINK

tks for the effort you put in here I appreciate it!

AndrewMcFaul
September 6th, 2009 | LINK

New here. Wanted to say hello.
Thanks,

Andrew McFaul
Andy McFaul

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.