Nearly 29% Of Msm In Bangkok Are Hiv Positive

[Pujun]

A recent Bangkok study, which reveals a high and rapid increase as compared to 2003 figures, also suggests more than one in four local MSM could be HIV positive. A Fridae exclusive from the HIV Prevention and Care Interventions for MSM in the Greater Mekong Region – Regional Consultative Forum in Bangkok.

More than one in four local MSM (men who have sex with men) in Bangkok could be infected with HIV, say researchers who polled 400 men at different venues including bars, saunas and parks this year.

The study was carried out by the Thailand Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) in collaboration with the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Thai Red Cross Society and the Rainbow Sky Association of Thailand, a gay rights and social group.

Conducted between June 13 and July 16, the study revealed a 28.3 per cent prevalence rate compared to 17.3 per cent in 2003. Foreigners were not included in the study.

The results were presented at the HIV Prevention and Care Interventions for MSM in the Greater Mekong Region – Regional Consultative Forum in Bangkok held on August 15 and 16.

In 2003, researchers enrolled 1121 Thai MSM who were 18 years or older, residents of Bangkok, and reported anal or oral sex with a man during the past six months. They were sampled at various venues throughout the day. Venues that were frequented by large numbers of foreign MSM were excluded. Participants received a written copy of the informed consent script and counselled before completing a Palm-based interviewer-administered questionnaire about demographics and sexual and drug use behaviours.

An oral fluid specimen was then collected for HIV testing and they were given an identification card for getting their HIV test results and post-test counseling. While interviews and oral specimens were linked through a bar code, data collection was otherwise anonymous.

"This is a very high, alarming and rapid increase. Statistically we can say that between one in four and one in three Thai MSM attending venues in Bangkok is infected with HIV," said lead researcher Dr Frits van Griensven at the meeting.

[OxfordWill]

Pretty scary statistic.

[tjames]

sounds like govt. propoganda

[britmaveric]

Any link to this info????

[Pujun]

Any link to this info???? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thai version can be found here

http://www.bangkokrainbow.org/index.php?to...=&contentid=185

English version:

http://www.dreadedned.com/news/2/94/

English version:

http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article...pe=section&cat=

Edited October 3, 2005 by Pujun

[Ijustwannateach]

A highly questionable survey which keeps coming up, unfortunately. I'm not even in the psych. business but I can see the overwhelming logical flaw in apply the results of this survey to the general population of Thailand:

People who go to saunas, parks, and bars in Bangkok do *NOT* represent the overwhelmingly invisible majority of men who have sex with men in Thailand, or even in Bangkok!!!

They represent a select group, including various combinations of:

1. the middle class and wealthy (who have money to go to these places)

2. the very poor who are selling themselves

3. those who are "out" enough to go to such places and not too shy

4. those who LIKE going to such places (I admit a fondness for socialising in certain bars with friends, but my sex life definitely does not include parks or saunas).

5. those who are not monogamous

6. those who are promiscuous and don't mind semi-anonymous sex

I'm amazed (or maybe not anymore) that this survey is "promoted" the way it is, considering how flawed it seems just based on its sample population. But perhaps the point was to show the risks involved in being a PART of that sample population- something you've had to look at very closely recently, haven't you, Pujun?

"Steven"

[OxfordWill]

You are right to draw attention to those flaws although I think the point is exactly as you raised - being a part of the sample, or of a similar group.

Very few such surveys could hope to avoid most of the flaws in that list and others you did not mention, an interesting next step would be to estimate what numbers might be applicable _given_ the sampling already taken, to the msm population at large.

Would it still be pretty high? The two groups, or each separate group, is hardly entirely separate after all. I suppose HIV does not discriminate against the time line.

[Rafalution]

This post really caught my eye, i'm not sure if they are published just to sell parpers or scaremonger of what? But reading it just it seems so stupid, I think the most obvious glaring error in this study at least from the way it is described is that is says "400 men were polled", 400 is a rediculously small number to base anything on and surely by even the US governments most artistics statisticians could never be considered statistically significant. Also is says polled, what the ###### does polled imply. It does not state if they were tested, how they were tested, or what test may or may not have been used and whether any positive tests where confimed using other procedures. It only tells us the procedure in 2003 where the sample size was almost 3 times the 2005 size, in which an oral test was used.

There are also other issues with testing for HIV especially in Tropical areas which is the number of false positives given and the quality of tests used. Remember HIV testing does not test for the HIV virus(in fact it's still debateable whether anyone has actually ever found the HIV virus), it tests for antiboidies and these are not specific to HIV and individuals exposed to for example malaria or TB (diseses prevalent in some areas of Thailand) will give false positive results.

Some comments on previous testing procedures in Thailand

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epthai.htm

Whilst I am not suggesting people should not be aware of risks, I wish the statistics they produced where not done in a way simply to scaremonger

Edited October 3, 2005 by Rafalution

[The_Moog]

unfortunately. I'm not even in the psych. business

I thought you were a geneticist or a risk management analyst

(coincidentally the latter is my own profession)

But you're not are you? I've forgotten what it is you do for a living that has given you this omniscient understanding on all subjects. Do remind me sometime.

I feel your handle is giving me a clue, but i'm too dimwitted to make any further inferrence !

[Ijustwannateach]

^Is this post on topic? For some reason, it seems all about me! (I'm just so vain...)

I never claimed to be either a risk management analyst, a psychologist, or anything else but a teacher. "Teacher" is a pretty broad description, though- and in my private life, "intellectual" probably applies as well (please prepare your spitballs and rotten tomatoes). That probably excuses at least slightly some of my common sense.

I get the feeling you have something vaguely against my point of view of the facts on the threads in which you've replied to me lately, Moog, but you keep addressing me rather that those inconvenient facts... perhaps as a risk management dowhatsit (but haven't you been mentioning teaching lately yourself? ) you might focus more on those skills in addressing the topics on various threads? I might even learn something from you.

"Steven"

[Ijustwannateach]

OxfordWill:

Yes, though data collection will face the usual tremendous difficulties in identifying a "normal" gay population- perhaps anonymous internet surveys would be a step closer, though in Thailand this would still be largely about the middle class and/or better-educated population.

It would be hard to answer questions like "what percentage of Thai gay men frequent saunas/bars/parks for the purpose of sex" without identifying the larger group of gay men. Any suggestions?

Rafalution:

Thanks for the additional info- didn't know testing here could be that shaky, though I was aware that the HIV virus is still somewhat theoretical.

"Steven"

[britmaveric]

I'd be interested if its the same people - control group or a random sample?

[Steve2UK]

unfortunately. I'm not even in the psych. business

I thought you were a geneticist or a risk management analyst

(coincidentally the latter is my own profession)

But you're not are you? I've forgotten what it is you do for a living that has given you this omniscient understanding on all subjects. Do remind me sometime.

I feel your handle is giving me a clue, but i'm too dimwitted to make any further inferrence !

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Moog, as you seem to like talking about yourself so much - maybe you'd give some thought as to why you post like this? From what I see of his posts, IJWT writes on matters about which he has a] some knowledge/understanding and/or b] a thought-through opinion.

[Pujun]

Bangkok is not alone. The HIV infection rate for gay community in HK also goes up rapidly...

http://www.ourbedroom.net/m_news2/news2_e.htm

[Pujun]

They represent a select group, including various combinations of:

1.  the middle class and wealthy (who have money to go to these places)

2.  the very poor who are selling themselves

3.  those who are "out" enough to go to such places and not too shy

4.  those who LIKE going to such places (I admit a fondness for socialising in certain bars with friends, but my sex life definitely does not include parks or saunas).

5.  those who are not monogamous

6.  those who are promiscuous and don't mind semi-anonymous sex

(snipped).  But perhaps the point was to show the risks involved in being a PART of that sample population-

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can tell you honestly that MOST gay Thai do visit sauna or pub or bar, do have causual sex with strangers. Many of them don't take safer sex seriously. I'm always the one who bring condom and lubricant everytime, not local Thai. I use condom even for oral sex.

Edited October 3, 2005 by Pujun

[The_Moog]

Moog, as you seem to like talking about yourself so much - maybe you'd give some thought as to why you post like this? From what I see of his posts, IJWT writes on matters about which he has a]some knowledge/understanding and/or b] a thought-through opinion.

Because the people making the survey were transparent about the limited sampling they used. (Saunas and Parks etc)

IJWT then points out that this survey does not represent the broader cross-section. He calls this a logical flaw'

Why is it a logical flaw? The researchers never represented that their sampling was representative of a wider spectrum.

If they had been opaque about the sampling, then his point would have been apt.

Actually fair-dos. He does concede.....

But perhaps the point was to show the risks involved in being a PART of that sample population

But the fact that you're sampling a limited cross section and disclosing that fact doesn't make the survey questionable nor flawed.

Newspapers will take the survey and selectively quote, but thats them at fault not the researchers.

Edited October 3, 2005 by The_Moog

[jerry921]

I think it's reasonable to look at the study's result this way:

"Among the most promiscuous and least risk-averse Thai MSM (other than professional prostitutes), the HIV prevalence rate is 29%, +/- a margin of error. The rate of infection might be climbing."

When they do political polls in the U.S. by phone before an election, I believe the typical sample sizes are usually 1000 to 2000 households; sometimes 500, sometimes 2500. These surveys claim margins of error ranging from 1% to 5% or so, if I'm remembering things correctly. That polling is backed up by tons of demographic data and research on prior voting patterns, etc, enabling them to scale the sample fairly well.

The point is, I think the margin of error for this survey is pretty high, but that 400 samples is enough to mean the result is still statistically valid. So if you want to be fairly sceptical, you could assume the margin of error is +/- 10%. 29% +/- 10% would make the HIV rate shockingly high, but not be enough to say it's increasing versus 2003.

Note that most studies of new medicines track far fewer than 400 patients for establishing efficacy and safety.

It woudl be interesting to compare this with a similar survey of working boys, since a good bit of the prevention-by-education focus has been targeted at professional sex workers, and to compare that with female prostitutes as well. Lots of studies of sex workers have been done, but whether the methodologies are comparable is another question.

[PeaceBlondie]

Could everyone in the room who knows a Thai who understands statistics, sampling, error rates, etc., please raise your hand? Nobody. Thank you; class dismissed.

[OxfordWill]

The Mooq, please note.

A highly questionable survey which keeps coming up, unfortunately.  I'm not even in the psych. business but I can see the overwhelming logical flaw in apply the results of this survey to the general population of Thailand:

PeaceBlondie, don't be silly.

[The_Moog]

Nobody is trying to apply the findings to the rest of the population.

Yes, if they did, it would be a flaw, but they aren't.

All this survey is saying, is that if you go cottaging in toilets or daisy chaining-in the Lumpini-bushes, your schlong stands a higher than average chance of turning black and falling off.

Before this survey a certain personage might have said, 'there's no empirical evidence to support this hypothesis'. Well now there is ..a little bit anyway !

(ps Anyway, he is secretly flattered I treat his pronouncements with such analytical rigor).

Edited October 4, 2005 by The_Moog

[OxfordWill]

Daisy Chaining - brilliant.

[Ijustwannateach]

Well, the OP for one seems to be applying the survey to all gay men in Bangkok, and whenever I have seen it mentioned it is in that (mistaken) context, Moog, so in fact my statement was NOT simply obvious and beside the point. Your second message, which was to the point (though mistaken), should have been your first message. And keep using condoms.

Pujun, all the gay Thai men you know may behave in the way you describe, but that's not all of them. Try meeting some of them *outside* saunas once in awhile, and maybe dating or something like that.

"Steven"

[jerry921]

Daisy Chaining - brilliant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is than some kind of SM thing?