STD rates up dramatically, and any comment on Charlie Sheen?

Reportable STD cases have gone up markedly since 2009, according to new data.

Be careful out there, guys. In particular syphilis cases have seen a huge spike among "men who have sex with men." Syphilis is up 79% overall. HIV is also up 33%

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/health/std-rates-ri … index.html

Of course, among those is Charlie Sheen. What did you guys think of his announcement? Drugs or sex? :)


Comments are disabled for this blog post.
  • It's a bummer for Charlie Sheen, but the announcement itself was not a surprise. The story reminds me of Steve Irwin (crikey mate!)--you knew how that story was going to end, you just did not know when.

    I gritted my teeth when reading the CNN article penned by Carina Storrs. I don't doubt the statistics given in the piece, but its conclusions on why the rates are going up are thoughtlessly worked out. When "probably" and "could be" are used to draw conclusions over a population of 320 million, then it's "probably" wrong and leads readers to their own erroneous assumptions.

    This year, rural America has seen an outbreak of HIV--the story of Austin, Indiana especially stands out. That spike is directly attributed to meth and the sharing of needles, but it's being played out all over in economically depressed communities in the US. If Storrs had been somewhat rigorous in her research the connection between poverty, drugs, lack of access to healthcare and the STD uptick would have been reported. Here in San Diego County where I live it's a direct correlation, and I'm betting it's the same where you live.

    I agree with art4u on the "men who have sex with men" clause is so awkward. Much of this article is awkward--within the stats there's a clear increase of STDs in the population of women. Storrs weirdly addresses it in an offhand manner, and then she finishes off her article with "The finding that rates of these STDs were increasing among men in particular should remind women to do everything they can to protect themselves and use a condom." Really? Tell me Carina, what should men, or "men who are having sex with men" do? How fucking trite can you get.

    Bear, you're in the news business--I don't think you would have let this piece out the door first without taking a pen to it, no?

    @TopDad--SF County has been real aggressive in its treatment of people with HIV and AIDS. There's a lot to be said for its model, but not all communities have the resources, or the political will, to sustain vigilant campaigns. Not sure if you caught this piece in the NY Times from October this year, but it covers your point. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/health/san-fran … tment.html

    @MT--We all our connected, thanks. Apathy, in the face of all that's been lost, is a tough one to swallow.
    furball 11/23/2015 01:51 PM
  • Very powerful post, Machine. Thank you.
    BearinFW 11/23/2015 04:10 AM
  • Yes, of course, I'm not on board. I don't 'believe' in pre-exposure prophylaxis. Firstly because I know the side effects of Truvada. Sorry, but not with me: the ship - to stay in this metaphor - is far bigger, and this is why I'm always alert when the 'wrong' terms are used like ' men who have sex with men' : the targetted evil is not the group but the praxis of unprotected sex. That might seem the same thing at a first glance, but is not.
    art4you 11/22/2015 08:04 AM
  • (First, do pardon my rant but this really hit a nerve in me.) I get more than outraged when I read about the new statistics for sexually transmitted diseases being on the rise. I wish I could say that I’m surprised after reading some profiles or seeing the increase of Bare-Back sites. I don’t really care what medication a guy is on, or when he was last checked, or whether he is detectable, or not. I have walked away after quite a few first meetings, ‘coffee dates,’ knowing that things would not go further because of any number of excuses why it is not necessary to simply wear a condom. Sure, hook-up sites make it easier to meet people, but they are not the cause of stupid decisions.

    I lived through a history of wonder in the 60s and 70s followed by one of horror in the 80s and 90s. I made more panels for the AIDS quilt than I care to count. The field of the sewed memories of beautiful men is so large now that it can’t be displayed in one place at one time anymore. I have helped too many people leave me with love and some dignity, while I fought with doctors so that my friends, who were closer to me than family, would not suffer extra trauma. Many clinical attempts were made to turn humans into lab-rats adding to their pain and confusion because gays, at that time, were considered more than rodents but less than human. And, through some strange twist of fortune I am negative… the only one of my close nit group still alive. So for me and for my lost loves I intend to stay that way, still loving men, but protecting us all as well as those who are connected to us and to them and on and on.

    For those who are so immature to think ‘it’ (whatever the ‘it’ is today or will be in the future) will not happen to them- go back and look at some films about the 80s and 90s... not too many years back. Perhaps you were not yet born or too young to understand then. But, most especially those of us who lived through those times who are older- negative or undetectable for- no matter how many years-, it is our responsibility to protect others and ourselves… and it only takes a condom or non-penetrative sex! Your knowledge should be shared not you ego.

    Newer diseases develop like SARS or Avian Bird Flu and older ones like Ebola attack again more powerfully because current drugs can be ineffectual. As a cocktail of drugs became a saving gift for so many, thank god, keeping some wonderful men alive, well, and active… a cocktail of illnesses could be an even more deadly nightmare undoing everything we worked so hard and so long to gain.

    The statistics are also there that negative guys don’t need to be afraid of men who are positive even though we know that a condom is not 100%. The point is this, <We Are All Responsible For Each Other>. Let’s face it, the church would be only too happy to see the LGBT population become targeted again with deadly illnesses, especially ones that could have been prevented and easily. It could be another weapon used forcing laws to be written because ‘some communities’ have proved not to be responsible when it comes to a nation’s health and well being. We are all connected. If you don’t feel you are, then may-be you shouldn’t be.
    MachineToole 11/21/2015 03:33 PM
  • Lol - lets keep dreaming! In this case 'heterosexual' is a very exclusive term, ...!
    art4you 11/20/2015 04:58 PM
  • I think they just phrase it as "men who have sex with men" to make it a catch-all to include gay men, bisexuals, swingers, married guys who have sex with other guys but don't own up to being gay, etc. .....
    BearinFW 11/20/2015 03:49 PM
  • Scusi, but 'men who have sex with men' ...? What is that? Isn't there a name for it? Or is cnn known for not naming 'you know who'?
    art4you 11/20/2015 11:45 AM
  • Just a thought but could it possibly be that since lower income people now have affordable healthcare that more cases are being reported than before? I am not saying that the entire up tick is due to this but it may be a good thing that more cases are being discovered where before they were not. Still it is a known fact down in South Florida that STD's cases are way up.
    barney290 11/20/2015 07:45 AM