You've Got Mail... and HIV

[OneFinger]

"In an age when many search for sex on the Internet, Los Angeles County health officials on Wednesday unveiled a controversial tool to fight the spread of HIV and other diseases: a website that helps send anonymous e-mail warning people that they might be infected.

 

Through the website, inSPOTLA.org, users can send a free, unsigned electronic postcard with a standard message or a personal note, thus avoiding an awkward conversation that many people would rather not have. The idea is to help people be more forthcoming with sexual partners so those at risk of sexually transmitted diseases get tested and practice safer sex...

 

But some say the e-cards are an insensitive way to inform people of unpleasant or even alarming news. "There's something about an anonymous e-mail that is a chicken way to do it," said Jeffrey Prang, a West Hollywood councilman.

 

Others worry that the online tool could be ripe for abuse by pranksters. The diagnoses of those who use the site do not have to be confirmed by health officials..."

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-web15dec15,0,1140423.story?coll=la-home-headlines

 

So, how would you feel about receiving such an e-mail? Do you really feel this is an effective way to notify others?

 

I'm personally very skeptical about the positive benefits of this "tool". I'm one of those that feel the potential for abuse is far stronger than the possible positive results.

 

-------------

"We need to have more respect for each other. Things have just gone really crazy, out of control. ... We're on a very weird kind of cycle." Stevie Wonder

[SAdler]

>So, how would you feel about receiving such an e-mail? Do you

>really feel this is an effective way to notify others?

 

Personally yeah ... I think it's great.

 

>I'm personally very skeptical about the positive benefits of

>this "tool". I'm one of those that feel the potential for

>abuse is far stronger than the possible positive results.

 

You're saying that the potential "abuse" is far stronger than possible positive results? Let's see, a possible faux email that you would probably be able to see through once in a while is a problem?

 

What about the fact that because of this system people who would NEVER report their issues will now do it when necessary. It would suck to get an email like that but I'd rather get SOME notification than none at all and possibly spread something. Even if it were a hoax, is it so bad that it pushes people to get tested?

[+ deej]

You're dreaming, Scott.

 

The script kiddies and virus authors will crash this service within 24 hours.

 

Email from this service will be as reliable or believable as those ads for V!agra or C|alis or breast augmentation that we all receive every day. It's every mail administrator's worst nightmare: a wide open gateway.

 

This was born for abuse, and will be abused. Particularly now that it's been announced to the public.

[LoneStar]

This is a shame. There is so much potential for abuse and to ruin lives. Have people forgotten that hundreds have committed suicide upon learning they were HIV+? Some without even getting tested but replying on the word of a companion.

 

Even putting that problem aside few people know each others email address. And what if they get the email address incorrect by accident. For example, maybe the partners address is chicagoman1 and the sender adds an additional number or spells the word "one."

 

There is way too much room for error.The potential benefit isn't worth the risk.

 

People need to take responsibility for their own well being. You cannot reply on Burger King to keep you healthy and you should not abstain from testing on a regular basis if you're sexually active.

[SAdler]

>The script kiddies and virus authors will crash this service

>within 24 hours.

 

Muffin Butt -- this service has been around for nearly a YEAR. I know because it came about shortly after I started using ManHunt and I had to email them to get the link (for a friend -- not hypothetical) because they have an autorefreshing banner. Just because the news is just NOW reporting on it doesn't mean it's new as has been the case of many things in this world.

 

>This was born for abuse, and will be abused. Particularly now

>that it's been announced to the public.

 

See -- I find this to be the saddest part. Sadistic individuals like those you mention fear about have polluted the good spirits of people who frequent this site. Instead of being optimists for a useful tool we have to shoot it down and expect the worst.

 

As someone referenced below about people who kill themselves upon the mere notice that they might be positive ... that shocks me -- I'm not saying it's untrue. But I would hope that people would have the sense to at LEAST get a medical confirmation before they take such crass action.

[tedbear]

>As someone referenced below about people who kill themselves

>upon the mere notice that they might be positive ... that

>shocks me -- I'm not saying it's untrue. But I would hope

>that people would have the sense to at LEAST get a medical

>confirmation before they take such crass action.

 

If you re-read the posting, you'll see it said people killed themselves **upon learning they were HIV+**. Trust me. It happened. To friends of mine. To neighbors. I'll never forget thie horror one morning when I raised the blinds in my highrise condo. The police were on the garage room of the building next door, standing next to a bloody pile that turned out to be someone who just learned he was positive. Since his apartment was "only" on the 10th floor, he broke into the roof access at the 60th floor, just to make sure he wouldn't survive.

 

Remember not that many years ago, being positive pretty much meant a death sentence. Some people decided to off themselves rather than live through the illness, the rejection by family and friends (and landlords and bosses).

[+ deej]

Maybe the AOL crowd will be targeted, but everyone with a decent spam filter will filter these things out.

 

The entire IT industry is focused on creating authenticated/trusted emails, not anonymous emails.

 

Like it or not, it's a bad idea.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Like it or not, it's a bad idea.

 

Maybe it is, but my dark side can't help thinking how much fun it would be to send such a notice to every member of the AFA. Wonder who they would boycott then?

[LoneStar]

Tedbear thanks for confirming my comments. I'll just add not only was HIV considered a death sentence not long ago but the shame also was too much for some people to handle.

 

Unfortunately, the mentioned site is not only all over the Internet, CNN & Fox News have done featured stories about it tonight.

 

I hope after the countless bogus emails they're certain to send out, that they'll remove the feature.

[SAdler]

>Tedbear thanks for confirming my comments. I'll just add not

>only was HIV considered a death sentence not long ago but the

>shame also was too much for some people to handle.

 

Not to discount any of that which is a tragedy and very sad but as you've both said, it was in years passed. Not saying we're at a perfect impass in the community but there have been MAJOR strides in treating the disease between then and now and it's not the instant death sentence it once was.

 

I'm not going to act naive and say that people lead perfect healthy normal lives but some have even compared it to living with such terminal illnesses as Diabetes. Obviously certain ranges of the spectrum are quite different but people can survive years now and I would feel safe in assuming the amount of HIV+ related suicides has decreased drastically. Again, I'm not quoting statistics just public perception.

 

It's true -- my generation didn't live through the days of having a funeral every weekend and thank god for it. It unfortunately gives a great deal of us unfounded invincibility complexes but there's a lot more hope today for treatment than there was ten and even five years ago.

 

>Unfortunately, the mentioned site is not only all over the

>Internet, CNN & Fox News have done featured stories about it

>tonight.

 

Again that's a shame. The San Francisco based site has been up nearly a year with no major press. I guess it's true what they say about the media -- they are truly evil. Frankly, this system if used appropriately is truly an asset.

 

>I hope after the countless bogus emails they're certain to

>send out, that they'll remove the feature.

 

Again, it's not just for HIV. The site allows you to hint a suggestion for testing for anything from scabies to syphillis, very treatable diseases.

 

Ironic point while playing devil's advocate and doing a "fake" email:

 

My friend sent a cutesy scabies/crabs one to his husband:

 

"Hey honey, I've been itching since last Sunday ... maybe you should get that checked ... Love, Hubby."

 

Obviously no malicious fakeness in the note -- by default it of course went directly into his husband's hotmail junk folder. So I guess it doesn't look like it will be doing anyone harm or good. x(

[seaboy4hire]

>"In an age when many search for sex on the Internet, Los

>Angeles County health officials on Wednesday unveiled a

>controversial tool to fight the spread of HIV and other

>diseases: a website that helps send anonymous e-mail warning

>people that they might be infected.

>

>Through the website, inSPOTLA.org, users can send a free,

>unsigned electronic postcard with a standard message or a

>personal note, thus avoiding an awkward conversation that many

>people would rather not have. The idea is to help people be

>more forthcoming with sexual partners so those at risk of

>sexually transmitted diseases get tested and practice safer

>sex...

>

>But some say the e-cards are an insensitive way to inform

>people of unpleasant or even alarming news. "There's something

>about an anonymous e-mail that is a chicken way to do it,"

>said Jeffrey Prang, a West Hollywood councilman.

>

>Others worry that the online tool could be ripe for abuse by

>pranksters. The diagnoses of those who use the site do not

>have to be confirmed by health officials..."

>

>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-web15dec15,0,1140423.story?coll=la-home-headlines

>

>So, how would you feel about receiving such an e-mail? Do you

>really feel this is an effective way to notify others?

>

>I'm personally very skeptical about the positive benefits of

>this "tool". I'm one of those that feel the potential for

>abuse is far stronger than the possible positive results.

>

>-------------

>"We need to have more respect for each other. Things

>have just gone really crazy, out of control. ... We're on a

>very weird kind of cycle." Stevie Wonder

>

>

Although the concept is good I feel imo that this is a cold way of doing such a thing. What happend to people taking full responsibility and being a man and just telling the person rather then then sending a cold email from some computer system? Back in 2001 when I found out I was positive that night when I got home from school I imidately got on the phone and started calling people. And for those who I didn't have their number I caught them on one of the many msgrs. and told them that way. Was it hard telling them in a personal way? Fuck ya! But ya know what it had to be done plain and simple. Technology is great don't get me wrong but this just seems to be very cold and a chicken shit way out. As for the stigma not being as bad as it was back in the day when a lot of us were still in pampers wake up the stigma is still there. I have lost appointments and casual fun because of my status and I've seen it in peoples eyes and how they sometimes treat me with kit gloves when I tell them I am poz. I guess is all I can say is be a man and tell the person yourself and not let some email system tell them.

 

Hugs,

Greg

 

Greg Seattle Wa [email protected]

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

[SAdler]

>Although the concept is good I feel imo that this is a cold

>way of doing such a thing. What happend to people taking full

>responsibility and being a man and just telling the person

>rather then then sending a cold email from some computer

>system? Back in 2001 when I found out I was positive that

>night when I got home from school I imidately got on the phone

>and started calling people. And for those who I didn't have

>their number I caught them on one of the many msgrs. and told

>them that way. Was it hard telling them in a personal way?

>Fuck ya! But ya know what it had to be done plain and simple.

>Technology is great don't get me wrong but this just seems to

>be very cold and a chicken shit way out.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you by ANY means. And I got yelled at somewhere along the lines when this was discussed in the Ask an Escort section in regard to disclosing and tracing STD’s etc about god forbid people be honest. I’m a sexually free individual, I enjoy it; I enjoy getting paid for it even more. With the exception of getting something “minor” from an ex (the reason we broke up) I’ve been lucky enough to avoid ( ::knock on wood:: ) getting anything at this point. I know that I would have no problem or shame in telling people that engaged in the same sex that I did with the same possible risks as myself that they might have an STD. It’s a known and calculated risk of sex. Nobody involved should feel morally inferior to the person they’re informing about a possible STD.

 

The POINT though is that SOME PEOPLE HAVE SERIOUS SELF ESTEEM ISSUES. You can’t fix it or expect anything better than this from them because they would see no other alternative in their life. So initially, you’re stuck with TWO options:

 

1) Tell the people you’ve slept with your dirty secret so they can get tested

2) Don’t tell them, hope they’ll figure it out and get treated or at least tested, but chances are neither will happen and they’ll continue to spread an infectious disease without knowing

 

Or NOW there is a third option

 

3) Send them an anonymous card so they at least get fucking tested (which they SHOULD be doing regardless) and prevent them from spreading a disease.

 

It may be a chicken shit way of doing it … but at least it gets people to DO something.

 

>As for the stigma not

>being as bad as it was back in the day when a lot of us were

>still in pampers wake up the stigma is still there. I have

>lost appointments and casual fun because of my status and I've

>seen it in peoples eyes and how they sometimes treat me with

>kit gloves when I tell them I am poz.

 

I never said anything about a stigma (or did not intend to and if I did I apologize) but I was referring to the fact that an HIV+ diagnosis isn’t the end of the world that it used to be. You’re living proof that people are motivated to move on and accept things in their life and then live it … because you can. What I was referring to was the ability to treat and have a life, not the stigma attached to it. Social Stigma finds roots in stereotypes and prejudice. Saying there is no stigma attached to ANY particular group of people is just being silly.

 

Again seaboy, sorry if anything I've said has offended. It was never intended to appear that way.

[seaboy4hire]

>>Although the concept is good I feel imo that this is a cold

>>way of doing such a thing. What happend to people taking

>full

>>responsibility and being a man and just telling the person

>>rather then then sending a cold email from some computer

>>system? Back in 2001 when I found out I was positive that

>>night when I got home from school I imidately got on the

>phone

>>and started calling people. And for those who I didn't have

>>their number I caught them on one of the many msgrs. and

>told

>>them that way. Was it hard telling them in a personal way?

>>Fuck ya! But ya know what it had to be done plain and

>simple.

>>Technology is great don't get me wrong but this just seems

>to

>>be very cold and a chicken shit way out.

>

>I'm not disagreeing with you by ANY means. And I got yelled

>at somewhere along the lines when this was discussed in the

>Ask an Escort section in regard to disclosing and tracing

>STD’s etc about god forbid people be honest. I’m a sexually

>free individual, I enjoy it; I enjoy getting paid for it even

>more. With the exception of getting something “minor” from an

>ex (the reason we broke up) I’ve been lucky enough to avoid (

>::knock on wood:: ) getting anything at this point. I know

>that I would have no problem or shame in telling people that

>engaged in the same sex that I did with the same possible

>risks as myself that they might have an STD. It’s a known and

>calculated risk of sex. Nobody involved should feel morally

>inferior to the person they’re informing about a possible

>STD.

>

>The POINT though is that SOME PEOPLE HAVE SERIOUS SELF ESTEEM

>ISSUES. You can’t fix it or expect anything better than this

>from them because they would see no other alternative in their

>life. So initially, you’re stuck with TWO options:

>

>1) Tell the people you’ve slept with your dirty secret so

>they can get tested

>2) Don’t tell them, hope they’ll figure it out and get

>treated or at least tested, but chances are neither will

>happen and they’ll continue to spread an infectious disease

>without knowing

>

>Or NOW there is a third option

>

>3) Send them an anonymous card so they at least get fucking

>tested (which they SHOULD be doing regardless) and prevent

>them from spreading a disease.

>

>It may be a chicken shit way of doing it … but at least it

>gets people to DO something.

>

>>As for the stigma not

>>being as bad as it was back in the day when a lot of us were

>>still in pampers wake up the stigma is still there. I have

>>lost appointments and casual fun because of my status and

>I've

>>seen it in peoples eyes and how they sometimes treat me with

>>kit gloves when I tell them I am poz.

>

>I never said anything about a stigma (or did not intend to and

>if I did I apologize) but I was referring to the fact that an

>HIV+ diagnosis isn’t the end of the world that it used to be.

>You’re living proof that people are motivated to move on and

>accept things in their life and then live it … because you

>can. What I was referring to was the ability to treat and

>have a life, not the stigma attached to it. Social Stigma

>finds roots in stereotypes and prejudice. Saying there is no

>stigma attached to ANY particular group of people is just

>being silly.

>

>Again seaboy, sorry if anything I've said has offended. It

>was never intended to appear that way.

 

No offence taken Scott. I felt that that the stigma (people killing themselfs) was being implied by many of the posts.

Greg Seattle Wa [email protected]

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

[OneFinger]

Seaboy and SAdler,

 

I hope you don't mind if I direct a question to you as representatives of the younger guys on this site.

 

I'm one of those old farts that remembers when HIV/AIDS hadn't even been named. Eventually a test was finally developed and gay men started to find out their HIV status.

 

One component of those early tests was that results were delivered in person and never over the phone, mail, or other means. In fact, the state health department where I lived imposed that requirement on all test facilities. The reason for this was that the news (good or bad) had to be delivered by someone trained to provide physiological support.

 

In addition, contact tracing also required one-on-one notification with people potentially exposed to HIV/AIDS.

 

Is this no longer a consideration for younger guys? Has HIV/AIDS become so common or "usual" that testing positive is less traumatic than in the past?

 

I realize that the e-mail site described in this thread doesn't provide test results and merely serves as a suggestion that someone be tested. But am I so out-of-touch with younger gays to feel that notification should be more personal and one-on-one?

 

And, suppose you received such an e-mail indicating that there might be reason for concern. Would guys your age consider it "no big deal"?

 

Personally, if one of those e-mails made it thought my junk mail filter, I can't begin to describe the mind-fucking that would be part of my personal life until I got at least two confirmation tests. Am I that unusual? (And, please, be gentle in your responses. This is a serious inquiry and not a light-hearted subject for me.)

 

-------------

"We need to have more respect for each other. Things have just gone really crazy, out of control. ... We're on a very weird kind of cycle." Stevie Wonder

[SAdler]

>I'm one of those old farts that remembers when HIV/AIDS hadn't

>even been named. Eventually a test was finally developed and

>gay men started to find out their HIV status.

 

Ah yes. At the time it was termed gay cancer from my studies. Even a cough or a cold could scare the living daylights out of people. It just goes to show you that knowing might be painful but not knowing could be far worse.

 

>One component of those early tests was that results were

>delivered in person and never over the phone, mail, or other

>means. In fact, the state health department where I lived

>imposed that requirement on all test facilities. The reason

>for this was that the news (good or bad) had to be delivered

>by someone trained to provide physiological support.

 

>In addition, contact tracing also required one-on-one

>notification with people potentially exposed to HIV/AIDS.

 

The problem with the ethics debate at hand here on this site is that people are failing to acknowledge my point that this isn’t strictly about HIV/AIDS. The site (when it originated in SF) was originally designed for non-fatal STDs like Gonorrhea and Chlamydia. In this day and age, most of the same rules apply. If you test positive the CDC or local branch thereof will contact you and give you a shpiel of standardized questions (do you know who you were with that gave it to you, have you possibly infected anyone else in the recent past, what are their names/contact info etc.) With HIV, it’s all strictly confidential. To the best of my understanding, if you test positive these days you are advised to share a list of your recent partners with them so they can advise they be tested.

 

>Is this no longer a consideration for younger guys? Has

>HIV/AIDS become so common or "usual" that testing positive is

>less traumatic than in the past?

 

I can only speak for myself and the general consensus of friends. Of course it could be construed as traumatic. You have gone to being a 100% healthy individual to being diagnosed with a potentially fatal disease that will impact your life socially, economically, and biomedically until a cure is found. Of course it’s a shock, but in this day and age it’s a possibility and I think that’s the point. Depending on your sexual behavior, the jitters attached to going into an HIV test are real. One knows there is always a chance that a condom wasn’t perfect or you had a cut in your mouth and a partner lied to you. It’s not expected or desired (except in the cases of people known as bug chasers which is a WHOLE other neuroses) but it’s definitely a consideration.

 

>I realize that the e-mail site described in this thread

>doesn't provide test results and merely serves as a suggestion

>that someone be tested. But am I so out-of-touch with younger

>gays to feel that notification should be more personal and

>one-on-one?

 

It’s not even so much of an “email” from this site. It’s a postcard with a witty remark and a personal message all the with the intent of telling a person to get tested. It might instill a little more basis of fear because you might have potentially been exposed to something – but frankly if you’re sexually active it’s no different than media bombardment telling you to get tested every day anyway.

 

>And, suppose you received such an e-mail indicating that there

>might be reason for concern. Would guys your age consider it

>"no big deal"?

 

It would scare the living day lights out of me. But I’d go to the local clinic and get tested and go from there. Of course it’s a big deal to me, but I don’t ever knowingly put myself in a situation where’d I’d be at risk for HIV.

 

>Personally, if one of those e-mails made it thought my junk

>mail filter, I can't begin to describe the mind-fucking that

>would be part of my personal life until I got at least two

>confirmation tests. Am I that unusual? (And, please, be gentle

>in your responses. This is a serious inquiry and not a

>light-hearted subject for me.)

 

You want to know what scares me and gives me a super mind fuck? The LAGLC has stopped using the Ora-Sure HIV tests in recent weeks. San Francisco discontinued using them months ago. Why? 13 FALSE POSITIVES. You want to talk about these little stupid e-cards causing a panic? Can you imagine what would happen in THOSE cases? The law suits that could have erupted from the suicides related to those? We’re all at risk. The only thing we can do is be rational individuals and look at the bigger picture instead of just a small pixel of an image.

 

Feel free to ask any questions, that’s what the boards are here for Never be afraid

[OneFinger]

Scott,

 

Thanks for the great reply and honesty in your answers! I'm glad to hear that, from your perspective, HIV/AIDS is still a serious concern with younger gays. And perhaps you're right that the "postcard" would not put the scare of God into most people but would only serve as a reminder to be tested.

 

Also appreciate the info on the false positives. You're right about that being a bigger concern and something that would cause me (and others) much more trama and mind-fucking. I personally wouldn't believe any SINGLE positive test and would wait for a second (and more accurate) confirmation test before believing anything.

 

In my previous post I also failed to give big kudos to Seaboy on the way he handled his poz situation. The way he contacted his partners and made sure they were aware is commendable. I think he's a classy guy with a good head on his shoulders.

 

But, I still don't have a good feeling about the e-mail system. I think there's too much potential for abuse and junk mail filtering may render it useless.

 

At least we can have differing opinions and remain civil. I do value your perspective and efforts to educate this old fart. ;-)

 

-------------

"We need to have more respect for each other. Things have just gone really crazy, out of control. ... We're on a very weird kind of cycle." Stevie Wonder

[seaboy4hire]

>

>One component of those early tests was that results were

>delivered in person and never over the phone, mail, or other

>means. In fact, the state health department where I lived

>imposed that requirement on all test facilities. The reason

>for this was that the news (good or bad) had to be delivered

>by someone trained to provide physiological support.

 

When I first started getting tested I went to the health dept and I too had to get the results in person. Strange though a few short years later when I finally got health insurance I went to my regular Dr. and the nurse would call me and let me know I could finaly breath. But on the last test they never called me so I knew that it wasn't good news. I do know though that a friend of mine had to go in to get his results from the county health dept here in Seattle.

>Is this no longer a consideration for younger guys? Has

>HIV/AIDS become so common or "usual" that testing positive is

>less traumatic than in the past?

 

 

In my experiences with some they aren't worried about it. This might be because they have gone through what some of the older posters have or seen.

 

>I realize that the e-mail site described in this thread

>doesn't provide test results and merely serves as a suggestion

>that someone be tested. But am I so out-of-touch with younger

>gays to feel that notification should be more personal and

>one-on-one?

 

 

I agree. As stated before I think that this email thing is a pussy assed way of telling someone they need to get tested. Come on guys pick up your balls and just tell the person they need to get tested! Geesh how fucking hard can it be?

 

>And, suppose you received such an e-mail indicating that there

>might be reason for concern. Would guys your age consider it

>"no big deal"?

>

>Personally, if one of those e-mails made it thought my junk

>mail filter, I can't begin to describe the mind-fucking that

>would be part of my personal life until I got at least two

>confirmation tests. Am I that unusual? (And, please, be gentle

>in your responses. This is a serious inquiry and not a

>light-hearted subject for me.)

 

 

No I don't think that is unusal to want two tests done. In fact when I found out that I was positive I demanded my Dr. do another round of tests even though he said that there was a 99.99% chance I would get the same results. Ya I am pushy like that with my Drs. even now but hey better to cover all my bases I figure.

Hope that this helps ya out Onefinger.

 

Hugs,

Greg

 

Greg Seattle Wa [email protected]

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

Vegas Jan 10-13, 2006

[skins1]

what the CDC says..

 

National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention

Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frequently Asked Questions | Home | Index | Search | Site Map

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How long after a possible exposure should I wait to get tested for HIV?

It can take some time for the immune system to produce enough antibodies for the antibody test to detect and this time period can vary from person to person. This time period is commonly referred to as the “window period”. Most people will develop detectable antibodies within 2 to 8 weeks (the average is 25 days). Even so, there is a chance that some individuals will take longer to develop detectable antibodies. Therefore, if the initial negative HIV test was conducted within the first 3 months after possible exposure, repeat testing should be considered >3 months after the exposure occurred to account for the possibility of a false-negative result. Ninety seven percent will develop antibodies in the first 3 months following the time of their infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months to develop antibodies to HIV.

 

For information on where to find an HIV testing site, visit the National HIV Testing Resources Web site at http://www.hivtest.org or call CDC-INFO 24 Hours/Day at1-800-CDC-INFO (232-4636), 1-888-232-6348 (TTY), in English, en Español.

 

If you would like more information or have personal concerns, call CDC-INFO 24 Hours/Day at1-800-CDC-INFO (232-4636), 1-888-232-6348 (TTY), in English, en Español.

 

Back to Questions

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGEND: = Link is outside of the DHAP domain...click the BACK button to return to this page.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frequently Asked Questions | Home | Index | Search | Site Map

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Last Revised: September 8, 2005

Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention

Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention

Contact Us