Recent headlines that heralded taking medication as a means of preventing transmission of HIV among gay men were applauded by many AIDS experts. The news came in a study of nearly 2,500 men in six countries that found that an average man taking the medication was 44 percent less likely to become infected than a control group taking a placebo.
How very sad that we have come to this point. The applause for this approach shows just how disposable we consider the lives of gay men.
If we were talking about protecting the general population with a treatment that was only 44 percent effective, would we be celebrating? Yet that is how the media and most of the public interpreted this study.
First, 100 real live men got infected with HIV while on this study. This is a tragedy. Thirty-six were infected while receiving the pre-exposure drugs.
The 44 percent who received a benefit were also intensively counseled monthly. Blood was drawn five times in the first six months, and there were frequent tests for all manner of sexual infections. This is in no way representative of any real-world situation, in which the efficacy rate would likely be even lower.
And the patients did not know whether they were receiving the drug or not, so the risk of infection was high. In effect, half the chambers in the gun were loaded.
Why would anyone willingly subject themselves to such drug therapy if they had any intention of using condoms? If someone tells almost any man that it is reasonably safe to have sex without a condom, as this study may suggest, he will likely do so.
Kevin Fenton, chief of HIV/AIDS for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said: "Some studies suggest that even a small increase in risk behavior due to a false sense of security about the pills' effectiveness could actually increase HIV infections, an outcome we cannot afford."
No comments:
Post a Comment