10 Percent Of Men On Grindr Have Never Been Tested For HIV/AIDS, Report Finds

[Steven_Draker]

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1383803/thumbs/n-GAY-MEN-large570.jpg?6

 

A survey released by the Center for HIV Educational Studies & Training in mid-September found that 10 percent of men on the gay hookup app Grindr have never had an HIV test -- while one-third of these men still tell potential partners that they're negative.

 

The study, titled “Patterns of Lifetime and Recent HIV Testing Among Men Who Have Sex with Men in New York City," sought to highlight the prevalence of HIV/AIDS knowledge and awareness among men who have sex with men via social networking applications in New York City, in order to evaluate testing patterns.

 

“When we first began looking at the data," stated Jon Rendina, a data analyst for the project, "we were surprised to find that one in 10 men on Grindr in NYC had never received an HIV test and we quickly realized we needed to look further into the issue.” The research reportedly sampled an estimated 1,300 gay men in the New York City area.

 

Additionally, the research suggested the one third of these men who have never been tested for HIV are lying about being negative. According to data analyst Jon Rendina, this “may mean that men are sharing potentially inaccurate HIV status information with their partners on Grindr.” Nearly one-third of the men who had never been tested also reported having anal sex without a condom in the past three months.

 

In terms of men that did report having been tested for HIV, half had done so within the past six months and 70 percent in the past year.

 

Rendina continued, "It’s our hope that these data highlight the importance of embedding HIV testing and other prevention campaigns where men who have sex with men network, socialize, and express their sexuality, such as Grindr.”

 

What do you think about the study's findings?

 

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/grindr-hiv-test_n_4025569.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices#s883739

[TruthBTold]

Thanks for the blurb. The study just emphasizes what has been noted here, "Assume the person you are playing with is HIV positive and take the appropriate precautions." Moreover, not taking precautions is your choice as an adult but factor in the chance of infection in your choice (if you care about it).

[Phil_musc]

There is a tendency to focus on the negative here. If 10% have not been tested, then that means that 90% HAVE been. That's actually a statistical success story.

 

Nevertheless, TruthBTold is right - assume the play-partner is positive and act accordingly.

[JoeyBryant]

Although I'm not an advocate of bareback sex...I have to say that the findings may be eyebrow raising, but come on. It's Grindr. A vanilla version of CL and adam. There's only so much one can do about what other people choose to do as far as getting tested. Which is, not take anyone's word and to play in ways that minimize risk of whatever STD you are trying to avoid.

 

I think people should get tested more often for gonorrhea/chlamydia than HIV. People are so worried about HIV, but they forget about the monster that might be sitting down their throat which is much more easier to catch than HIV. Although those are considered 'curable' diseases...the damage that they can cause along with the future occurence of certain cancers is reason for concern. I heard in Mexico, the remedy is over the counter. But here, they want to know who's out slutting around so they can make sure you paid attention in Human Growth and Development classes that you can take every year from 5th grade to graduation.

 

I'm personally not a huge advocate of mass testings either. I think too many people get positive results, and immediately are put on drugs for the rest of their life. People get on HIV meds and don't even know why they are on them other than that's what they've been told to do. Rarely are the side-effects and eventual liver damage and muscle wasting are mentioned. But, everyone has the power to educate themselves on what they choose to believe.

[Steven_Draker]

I'm personally not a huge advocate of mass testings either. I think too many people get positive results, and immediately are put on drugs for the rest of their life.

 

Joey, what do you think is the purpose of the testing and the early detection of the virus? What alternative solution do you offer?

 

 

 

"Many people may only undergo one STD test in their lifetime. However, new evidence from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that the majority of people who test positive for HIV are diagnosed after an earlier screening. The numbers underscore the need for regular testing.

 

After examining public health data from 2006 through 2009, the CDC researchers found that 59 percent of HIV diagnoses were made in people who had been tested for the condition at an earlier date.

 

The researchers said the findings highlight the need for making HIV testing a part of regular healthcare. One negative test does not sufficiently indicate that a person has a low risk of becoming infected.

 

"Persons who are unaware of their HIV infection might not change their behavior to reduce the risk for transmission and will not be linked to care, resulting in worse health outcomes," the researchers wrote in their report.

 

Identifying people early is considered an important part of stopping the spread of the infection. HIV can be treated more effectively when it is diagnosed in its early stages and people may stop risky sexual practices when they find out they are infected."

 

Add to that: An undetectable viral load considerably lowers the risk of transmission.

[leigh.bess.toad]

Joey, what do you think is the purpose of the testing and the early detection of the virus? What alternative solution do you offer?[/color]

 

 

 

"Many people may only undergo one STD test in their lifetime. However, new evidence from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that the majority of people who test positive for HIV are diagnosed after an earlier screening. The numbers underscore the need for regular testing.

 

After examining public health data from 2006 through 2009, the CDC researchers found that 59 percent of HIV diagnoses were made in people who had been tested for the condition at an earlier date.

 

The researchers said the findings highlight the need for making HIV testing a part of regular healthcare. One negative test does not sufficiently indicate that a person has a low risk of becoming infected.

 

"Persons who are unaware of their HIV infection might not change their behavior to reduce the risk for transmission and will not be linked to care, resulting in worse health outcomes," the researchers wrote in their report.

 

Identifying people early is considered an important part of stopping the spread of the infection. HIV can be treated more effectively when it is diagnosed in its early stages and people may stop risky sexual practices when they find out they are infected."

 

Add to that: An undetectable viral load considerably lowers the risk of transmission.

 

Steven (and others) -- I'd love to hear your thoughts on the use of Truvada (PrEP) for guys playing on Grindr, A4A and the like. And how widespread is it in use among the escort community as well?

[JoeyBryant]

Joey, what do you think is the purpose of the testing and the early detection of the virus? What alternative solution do you offer?[/color] Identifying people early is considered an important part of stopping the spread of the infection. HIV can be treated more effectively when it is diagnosed in its early stages and people may stop risky sexual practices when they find out they are infected."

 

I'm not going to offer my solutions here simply because it's just not the place. There's other forums that are dedicated to this type of topic, but I'm not going to debate on it with people who may have completely different philosophies. Because then, I'd have to defend myself against something I already know about...which would just be a waste of time. BUT...I don't mind giving people different views, maybe new views they've never even heard of before. I invite them to question what they know so far, and to evaluate what their doing.

 

I also just don't believe the fact of someone being diagnosed is going to stop them from engaging in risky sexual practices. I've known men who were doctors and nurses still engage in bareback sex.

 

In addition, the comment you made about low viral loads being less likely to transmit proves the point even moreso. Lots of BB advocates cite low or undetectable viral loads and see that as a free pass to have BB sex. That kind of throws the 'once they know, they play safer' out the window.

 

Steven (and others) -- I'd love to hear your thoughts on the use of Truvada (PrEP) for guys playing on Grindr, A4A and the like. And how widespread is it in use among the escort community as well?

 

My thoughts are they shouldn't be using it period. If they are playing it safe, there isn't a need to be taking preventative meds. It shouldn't be taken like multi-vitamins as a green light to just let anything go.

[Steven_Draker]

Steven (and others) -- I'd love to hear your thoughts on the use of Truvada (PrEP) for guys playing on Grindr, A4A and the like. And how widespread is it in use among the escort community as well?

 

My feeling is that Truvada is not a substitute for a condom.

[+ FreshFluff]

The survey sounds interesting. I'm guessing that, if anything, the percentage of men on Grindr who haven't been tested is higher than their number. Those who haven't been tested would be less likely to respond than those who have.

 

I'd love to use this as an example in class, but it's too risky for my current set of students.

[Steven_Draker]

I also just don't believe the fact of someone being diagnosed is going to stop them from engaging in risky sexual practices.

 

I totally agree with you. It may have just the opposite effect: riskier behavior and more barebacking. The difference is that one won't be ignorant about his own status.

 

I'm personally not a huge advocate of mass testings either. I think too many people get positive results, and immediately are put on drugs for the rest of their life. People get on HIV meds and don't even know why they are on them other than that's what they've been told to do.

 

I'm not sure how to read your comment? Are you trying to annihilate the progress that has been achieved thanks to antiretroviral drugs or advocate against screening and HIV testing?

 

Your words go against every AIDS awareness campaign I've come across to.

 

 

--- KNOW YOUR STATUS ! ---

 

 

To end this on a more positive note here's the article that has been published by UNAIDS a couple of weeks ago.

 

 

LONDON, Sept 23 (Reuters) - The global rate of HIV infection and the number of AIDS-related deaths have been dramatically reduced, thanks to expanding access to treatment, the United Nations said in a report issued on Monday.

 

In its annual update on HIV, which it said now infects around 35.3 million people worldwide, UNAIDS said deaths from AIDS and HIV infection rates were falling, while the number of people getting treatment is going up.

 

AIDS-related deaths in 2012 fell to 1.6 million, down from 1.7 million in 2011 and a peak of 2.3 million in 2005. And the number of people newly infected with the disease dropped to 2.3 million in 2012 down from 2.5 million in 2011.

 

The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that causes AIDS can be transmitted via blood, breast milk and by semen during sex, but can be kept in check with cocktails of drugs known as antiretroviral treatment or therapy.

 

By the end of 2012, some 9.7 million people in poorer and middle-income countries had access to such AIDS drugs, an increase of nearly 20 percent in a year.

 

Since 2001, the U.N. report said, there has been a 52 percent drop in annual new HIV infections among children and a 33 percent reduction in newly infected adults and children combined.

 

In 2011, UN member states agreed to a target of getting HIV treatment to 15 million people by 2015. As countries scaled up treatment coverage and as evidence showed how treating HIV early also reduces its spread, the World Health Organization set new guidelines this year, expanding the number of people needing treatment by more than 10 million.

 

Michel Sidibé, UNAIDS' executive director, said the international community should aim to surpass the 2015 goal.

 

"Not only can we meet the 2015 target of 15 million people on HIV treatment, we must also go beyond and have the vision and commitment to ensure no one is left behind," he said in a statement with Monday's report.

 

The UNAIDS report found that despite a flattening in donor funding for HIV, which has remained near 2008 levels, individual countries' domestic spending on the epidemic has increased, accounting for 53 percent of global HIV resources in 2012.

 

Total funding for the global fight against HIV and AIDS in 2012 was $18.9 billion, about $3 billion to $5 billion short of the estimated $22 billion to $24 billion needed annually by 2015. (Editing by Stacey Joyce)

 

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/global-rate-of-hiv-infection_n_3974248.html

[bostonman]

I have the grindr app on my iphone, but have never really used it much - I don't even have an account yet. But Grindr's last 2 "updates" leave me with an app that doesn't even open properly - and judging comments I'm reading on the app reviews, I'm not the only one having that issue. So, for the moment, I suspect a lot less people are using the site anyway.

[instudiocity]

Frankly, I'm surprised the number - 10% - is that low. I'd speculate in reality it's more like 30-50% of guys on grindr have never been tested for HIV/AIDS.

[JoeyBryant]

Are you trying to annihilate the progress that has been achieved thanks to antiretroviral drugs or advocate against screening and HIV testing?

 

Your words go against every AIDS awareness campaign I've come across to.

 

 

--- KNOW YOUR STATUS ! ---

 

 

To end this on a more positive note here's the article that has been published by UNAIDS a couple of weeks ago.

 

 

Total funding for the global fight against HIV and AIDS in 2012 was $18.9 billion, about $3 billion to $5 billion short of the estimated $22 billion to $24 billion needed annually by 2015. (Editing by Stacey Joyce)

 

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/global-rate-of-hiv-infection_n_3974248.html

 

Wow, that's alot of money. All the more reason to go into the trenches and scour for potential HIV+ folk who are candidates for meds.

 

I'm not trying to do any of the above. All I was doing was just stating an opinion of my own, based upon my own research from various sources.

 

One can get screened and tested for every bug under the sun if they so choose to do so. I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing it. But, my thing is there seems to be some giant foam finger pointing towards the ones who haven't gotten tested for HIV. So they get tested, might end up positive...and then get put on drug cocktails. I just don't believe that's the answer. I've heard of friends who come down with colds/allergies go to HIV testing centers instead of going to a M.D. Why? Because it's been drilled into their brains that HIV is all around them, and it's an almost certain fate. It's a bunch of fucking bullshit that needs new views and not the same old shit from yesteryears. The information is out there, one just needs to be willing to challenge the dogma.

[sfguy]

So they get tested, might end up positive...and then get put on drug cocktails. I just don't believe that's the answer.

The answer to what?

 

As Steven mentioned earlier, guys that are undetectable and on meds are much less likely to transmit HIV to others. Guys who don't know they are positive at all are more likely to transmit HIV. If they have HIV, they probably already have unprotected sex with others. Not knowing they are HIV means that they can't decide to only bareback with other positive guys. And not knowing means that they can't inform partners who are negative so that they can make the decision about whether or not to bareback with him. Knowing your status means that guys can actively choose to prevent themselves from transmitting HIV to others, and it gives their potential partners the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding barebacking with them.

 

There are lots of reasons men may not start on meds right away too. Some guys have other health issues that could be worsened by starting HIV meds so they may wait (in consultation with their doctors) to start until their CD4 count drops. Some guys may not be able to commit to the regimented HIV meds plans. Failing to take the meds as directed could result in the meds becoming ineffective or the HIV becoming resistant. Those guys may choose to wait until they're at a point in their lives when they can commit to it.

 

But without knowing your status, you can't make an informed decision about whether it's right to start on meds or not. So it's good for the individual and good for the community. It's not clear to me what other answers there possibly could be.

 

As far as guys who go get tested when they so much as have cold, that's concerning. They may want to see a therapist or someone to talk to about it. When the fear of HIV runs that deep and affects your everyday life, there might be anxiety issues that need to be addressed. Good mental health is just as important as good physical health.

[Steven_Draker]

Good synthesis, sfguy.

 

Joey raised one important question though: why these 10% on Grindr have never been tested ... part of the answer may be FEAR.

Some guys just don't want to KNOW their status, because they don't want to deal with the results. I think they're less likely to care about their own health even less the health of those around.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AlaZTgDZ_Rc/TZsMXn6WxGI/AAAAAAAAAA8/rkBkO13RaMM/s1600/head-in-sand.jpg

 

SFguy explained very well that guys who are put on ARV drugs and become undetectable are much less likely to transmit HIV to others. Guys who don't know they are positive are more likely to transmit HIV. Specialists and researchers are expressing the need for making HIV testing a part of regular healthcare.

[JoeyBryant]

The answer to what?

 

As Steven mentioned earlier, guys that are undetectable and on meds are much less likely to transmit HIV to others. Guys who don't know they are positive at all are more likely to transmit HIV. If they have HIV, they probably already have unprotected sex with others. Not knowing they are HIV means that they can't decide to only bareback with other positive guys.

 

This is assuming that the non tested guys are having bareback sex. Think about it, "guys who don't know they are positive at all are more likely to transmit HIV". It's basically saying those who haven't been tested, also don't know how or why to use a condom. That may or may not be the case. But from my experience, most guys do use condoms.

[JoeyBryant]

The answer to what?

 

 

As far as guys who go get tested when they so much as have cold, that's concerning. They may want to see a therapist or someone to talk to about it. When the fear of HIV runs that deep and affects your everyday life, there might be anxiety issues that need to be addressed. Good mental health is just as important as good physical health.

 

What I'm saying is not the answer, would be the getting tested and automatically being put on ARV's. If you ever go into a clinic with a friend (or yourself if it applies) and come up positive, you'd never hear them hesitate to get the person on meds right away...even if the person appeared perfectly healthy both present and past. They'd want them to get started immediately and money wouldn't be an issue.

 

I had a friend who told me a story about how he had a cough for like 3 weeks, and felt mildly ill. He decided to go make another appointment at the HIV testing center...rather than a regular M.D. well, he came up poz and has been on ARV's ever since. But my question is, if this person was straight male (non risk group), and went into a regular doctor...would the treatment be different? I bet it would. Because I had the same ailment some years ago..being negative...and some prescription cough medicine and a change of climate took care of that. A lingering cough for weeks can had dozens of causes not related to HIV.

 

The fear is not related to any mental health issue. It's just the by-product of what's out there. Now, I'm not saying anything about nothing. You can interpret what I'm saying anyway you choose. I'm just debating the merits of being put on ARV's versus simply treating the person for whatever ailment they may have...and I feel people who are poz or high risk groups don't really get that opportunity.

[+ Gar1eth]

What I'm saying is not the answer, would be the getting tested and automatically being put on ARV's. If you ever go into a clinic with a friend (or yourself if it applies) and come up positive, you'd never hear them hesitate to get the person on meds right away...even if the person appeared perfectly healthy both present and past. They'd want them to get started immediately and money wouldn't be an issue.

 

I had a friend who told me a story about how he had a cough for like 3 weeks, and felt mildly ill. He decided to go make another appointment at the HIV testing center...rather than a regular M.D. well, he came up poz and has been on ARV's ever since. But my question is, if this person was straight male (non risk group), and went into a regular doctor...would the treatment be different? I bet it would. Because I had the same ailment some years ago..being negative...and some prescription cough medicine and a change of climate took care of that. A lingering cough for weeks can had dozens of causes not related to HIV.

 

The fear is not related to any mental health issue. It's just the by-product of what's out there. Now, I'm not saying anything about nothing. You can interpret what I'm saying anyway you choose. I'm just debating the merits of being put on ARV's versus simply treating the person for whatever ailment they may have...and I feel people who are poz or high risk groups don't really get that opportunity.

 

 

That's so ridiculous, Joey, that I have to log in. In the case you cite about the cough- whether the cough was due to HIV infection or not -in this case it was a g-dsend for your friend because he obviously knew he had done something that put him at risk for catching HIV and prior to the cough he didn't seem to have been tested recently enough ( and if he or his physician hadn't been interested in checking his status before he had a cough- that cough whether HIV caused of not may have saved his life or at least the quality of his life). The current HIV medications cause much less side effects than even those from 1996 less than 20 years ago. There is definite proof that starting therapy before your CD4 count gets as low as they originally recommended improves your health and recovery, and there are suggestions that it is helpful even with a CD4 count of > 500. Now if it were me- and I think the average 'not into unproven homeopathy alternative medicine type' person would agree with me--- I would prefer to follow the current recommendations of the HIV specialist physicians. The only - and I'll admit it's major' - drawback being the cost. But this is not a 24 hour GI bug we are talking about. This is a disease that can and without treatment will surely kill you 99% of the time. So while yes not everyone with a cough needs an HIV test- if this friend had a cough, had participated in behaviors that put him at risk of HIV, and had not been tested recently then I'm glad he was. In this case the 'cough' probably saved his life because it either made him or his physician suspicious enough to send the test. And just in case he hadn't turned out positive, I hope the scare would have been enough to make him practice safe sex more diligently, and be tested more often.

 

Gman

[JT Brooklyn]

No Surprises here!

[sfguy]

This is assuming that the non tested guys are having bareback sex. Think about it, "guys who don't know they are positive at all are more likely to transmit HIV". It's basically saying those who haven't been tested, also don't know how or why to use a condom. That may or may not be the case. But from my experience, most guys do use condoms.

The article mentioned that one-third of the men who said they had never been tested also said that they had barebacked in the last 3 months. In a different study almost half of the men on Grindr said they always, often, or sometimes bareback.

 

And it's not only men who have never been tested who may be positive but not know it. Men who do not get tested regularly or wait long periods between tests may not know they are positive. In the study cited in the original post, of the men who said they had been tested, 70% said they had been tested within the last year. That means 30%, almost a third, have not been tested in over a year.

 

And I agree that most guys use condoms... at least sometimes. But studies have shown that a significant number of men also bareback at least sometimes. I don't think I know a single gay man who has never barebacked. Whether it is because they were in a relationship, felt some sort of trust with a sex partner, or just had a slip up, I think the number of men who have used a condom every single time without fail throughout their sex life is smaller than people think. Beyond that, condoms are not a 100% guarantee. Sometimes condoms break. And unfortunately, sometimes the top doesn't say anything about it and just keeps going. There are no guarantees except not having sex at all, and that's not exactly a workable strategy.

 

I had a friend who told me a story about how he had a cough for like 3 weeks, and felt mildly ill. He decided to go make another appointment at the HIV testing center...rather than a regular M.D. well, he came up poz and has been on ARV's ever since. But my question is, if this person was straight male (non risk group), and went into a regular doctor...would the treatment be different? I bet it would. Because I had the same ailment some years ago..being negative...and some prescription cough medicine and a change of climate took care of that. A lingering cough for weeks can had dozens of causes not related to HIV.

 

I think I understand now what you're saying about starting drug treatment. I'm not aware of any HIV/STD clinics here in San Francisco that provide actual treatment for HIV. If you test positive, they will link you to appropriate medical care but they do not provide the medical care themselves. But it may be different where you live. Your friend had a cough and went an HIV testing center, not to a primary care doctor. The role of HIV testing centers is to increase access to HIV testing and provide HIV prevention counseling. He tested positive and was provided treatment for the disease that is their focus.

 

If he had gone to a primary care doctor, he probably would have been treated for his cough. He might also have been tested for HIV and ended up in treatment after his positive test result. The CDC recommends that healthcare facilities, including primary care settings, urgent care, etc., perform routine HIV screenings for all patients between 13 and 64. In fact, the CDC recommends that the HIV test be performed unless the patient opts out after being informed that the test will be performed. Part of the CDC's rationale is that acute HIV infection looks a lot like the flu or mono or a number of other illnesses, and the doctor won't notice the acute HIV infection, which may be the actual cause of the patient's symptoms. Of course, those are just the CDC's recommendations, and health care facilities might not follow them.

 

I agree that not everyone needs to be placed on meds right away. Some people may not need antiretrovirals for years after they become infected. But they won't know that their immune functions need to be monitored closely unless they know they are HIV positive. If men don't know they are positive, they and their doctors can't make an informed decision about when to begin medical treatment. I agree that it's problematic that so many doctors are quick to start meds, even if the virus is not yet having an adverse affect on the patient's health or immune functions. But that's a separate issue from the testing issue. Men run the risk of having HIV seriously damage their bodies if they do not know that they needed to be on the lookout for signs that the virus is progressing.

[+ Gar1eth]

I agree that not everyone needs to be placed on meds right away. Some people may not need antiretrovirals for years after they become infected. But they won't know that their immune functions need to be monitored closely unless they know they are HIV positive. If men don't know they are positive, they and their doctors can't make an informed decision about when to begin medical treatment. I agree that it's problematic that so many doctors are quick to start meds, even if the virus is not yet having an adverse affect on the patient's health or immune functions. But that's a separate issue from the testing issue. Men run the risk of having HIV seriously damage their bodies if they do not know that they needed to be on the lookout for signs that the virus is progressing.

 

As I said in my earlier post- starting treatment early is not necessarily a bad thing. It's not like physicians are just deciding on their own to start earlier treatment. Earlier treatment is what the newer recommendations are advising. From an article I read-

 

"The supportive arguments for treating all HIV-infected patients, regardless of CD4 cell count, include expanded therapeutic options, greater potency of antiretroviral medications, and simplified dosing regimens, which facilitate adherence and improved quality of life, compared with earlier regimens. In addition, greater understanding of HIV pathogenesis suggests that untreated HIV infection is associated with an increased risk of other comorbidities."

 

And

 

"Delayed treatment can also lead to subtherapeutic responses to treatment and immunologic decline"

 

And finally-"A major public health-related rationale for early ART initiation is to prevent HIV transmission from an HIV-seropositive person to an HIV-seronegative sex partner and from an HIV-infected pregnant woman to an uninfected infant. These preventive health benefits may also apply to HIV discordant injection drug users who share drug paraphernalia. "

 

Those all sound like awfully good reasons to me for starting treatment earlier rather than later.

 

Gman

[LookingAround]

The 90% who are tested on Grindr is probably higher than your client base statistics....

[Steven_Draker]

I don't have client base statistics.

 

Since I started escorting I've never had any STDs. I get tested regularly though - up to 4-5 times a year.

 

Have you been tested yourself recently?

[seeker630]

The 90% who are tested on Grindr is probably higher than your client base statistics....

 

My initial response to the original post was surprise that 90% HAVE been tested at least once.

[JoeyBryant]

Have you been tested yourself recently?[/color]

 

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/688/754/OprahTruth_original.gif?1358565238