When you watch a documentary, the intention is to learn something about a particular subject based on information that is factual. If you would like to watch a documentary about bug chasing hoping to be informed from a neutral standpoint, I would not recommend the documentary recently released by Channel 4 that was produced by Future Studios, as this 20 minute documentary provides some insight into bug chasing, including a selection of facts that are overshadowed by a significant amount of bias that will most likely lead to a large percentage of viewers ridiculing those who are gay or HIV-positive and create stigma due to the way this documentary was presented.
Channel 4 is a publicly owned British free-to-air public broadcast television channel owned and operated by Channel Four Television Corporation that receives no public funding and is funded entirely by its commercial activities, including advertising. Future Studios is a production company based in London that makes documentaries and factual TV for Netflix, Channel 4, the BBC, Snap Originals and others. The producer of this documentary admitted on film to infiltrating online communities to find bug chasers and learn more about bug chasing, and shared that it was difficult to find bug chasers and gift givers, due to the small percentage of people who do actually chase and gift, yet when the presenter did find 2 people to talk to, he admitted to being disturbed by how open and honest they were.
“Bug Chasers: The Men Who Want HIV” was released by Channel 4 Documentaries via their YouTube Channel on March 8, 2024 and is presented by HIV-activist Nathaniel Hill. Nathaniel revealed in the documentary that he became HIV-positive at age 16 following a sexual encounter in a church yard, which would have been at a time before PrEP became available in the United Kingdom. Being infected with a lifelong virus at such a young age would understandably have affected the presenter’s mental wellbeing, which still appears to be the case due to the tears and him breaking down during the production and as such, it would be naturally difficult for him to remain impartial, as he’s too close to the subject and it’s a very personal issue for him.
As many HIV-positive people know, the stigma surrounding HIV can be consistently intense, even in this day when more information is known about HIV/AIDS, such as the virus being untransmittable when a person is undetectable and there’s also medication available for those who want to protect themselves from becoming infected with HIV if they choose to. It may have seemed like a great idea for someone who became HIV-positive unintentionally to present a documentary about those who want to become HIV-positive intentionally, but when the presenter appears to be still affected by what happened to him several years ago, it’s going to be difficult for this person to maintain journalistic objectivity, which is what has happened in this case.
Another issue is the length of the documentary. Bug chasing is a very complex issue, so a 20 minute documentary is not even going to scratch the surface of something that involves a lot of emotion and thought processes. Bug chasers don’t just wake up one day saying they want to become a bug chaser and go out later that same day seeking the virus, they will often consider why they feel this way and research this over a significant period of time (sometimes years) to help them understand themselves before they even consider such a thing. For this reason, those involved with producing the documentary missed an opportunity to provide more information about HIV, why some people desire the virus and being able to explore a deeper insight into bug chasing and gift giving, even though the production team had access to a number of people who were able to provide this insight.
Many bug chasers use Curious Chaser to help them understand themselves better, but the producers decided to use small portions of this website to add controversy to their documentary. They failed to include or acknowledge other information from the articles or forum threads here that include important information on the subject and instead chose a couple of posts to help sensationalise the issue to support their agenda. When you’ve got a plethora of forum posts (currently over 7,500), with many of these threads providing information giving a better understanding into bug chasing and instead chose to feature a couple of posts to support the viewpoint the producers took the documentary in shows reckless journalism, yet this is one of the most important tools the media will use to promote and market themselves.
As Channel 4 is a British public broadcast service that derives their income from advertising, they need to attract an audience, which puts pressure on the producers to make content that will captivate an audience, so to do this, they need to explore subjects that can be controversial, which will attract attention and create a discussion that will lead to more attention to keep the advertisers happy and to keep the establishment funded and those within the establishment employed. This happens at the expense of others and makes it more difficult for the broadcaster to provide quality productions that explore subjects based on full facts and not just a selection of facts overshadowed by a significant amount of bias.
Documentary
Source: Oxford Dictionary
Adjective: using pictures or interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual report on a particular subject.
Noun: a film or television or radio programme that provides a factual report on a particular subject.
The 2 people who appeared in this documentary answered questions honestly and were most likely hoping that the documentary would be presented in a respectful and neutral manner, which the producer indicated “would take place in a safe and non-judgmental/stigma free environment”. I’m sure these people were also disappointed by how the documentary was presented and may now feel like victims of the media. I will say this again: it’s difficult for a person who has been deeply affected by HIV, who is an HIV-activist to present a documentary like this to consider the pros and cons of bug chasing and present the facts in an impartial manner so the audience can consider complete information and not just selected segments of information.
The viewers of this documentary will likely have responses of disgust towards gay people and those who are HIV-positive, not only bug chasers or gift givers due to the way this documentary was presented, so the presenter has actually done a disservice to those in his own community through his involvement in this documentary even though the presenter stated that he was trying to smash stigma. By trying to highlight something without presenting all the facts to viewers, those watching will form an opinion based on what they have seen, which is a problem and it makes me wonder what the intention of the presenter was with this documentary, especially when others were interviewed and their contributions were not included in the documentary.
In addition to this, Channel 4 Documentaries released a further documentary on March 15, 2024 called “I Contracted HIV on Purpose”, which involves 3 people intensely questioning a gift giver, again making a further spectacle of HIV-positive people, which gives an opportunity for these people to spew disgust in the direction of the person who was trying to be honest with them. I stopped watching this partway through due to the agenda Channel 4 seems to have about bug chasers and gift givers at this present time. I urge all bug chasers and gift givers to immediately stop participating in interviews and research projects, because people cannot help themselves and continue to introduce bug chasing to their audience in a style that’s controversial and devoid of all the facts at our expense.
I actually question whether this should be called a documentary, as there’s a lot of personal opinion squeezed into the 20 minute video. Perhaps it should be referred to as a short film rather than a documentary, as it doesn’t completely meet the criteria to be considered a documentary, as it doesn’t contain all the key ingredients that make up a documentary, which is all the facts presented to the viewer to help the viewer learn from what they have seen, this only includes a selection of facts overshadowed by personal opinion, disbelief and grief. What viewers will learn from a documentary like this is how to be judgemental and ignorant, so if this was the intended outcome, then well done to those involved with producing it.
Everyone involved in this production should be ashamed of themselves due to the damage they have done to the gay community and also to HIV-positive people, who are likely going to be put under the microscope as being potential gift-givers. So what has happened is someone who appears to have been affected by HIV and stated in the documentary that he has tried to breaking down stigma and shame is now going to share the burden with others who have most likely had to struggle with the issue themselves and instead of educating people, this video is just stirring up mud and creating a murky discussion that sets back advances people may have made with their coping mechanisms.
The presenter was also quick to point the finger about the bug chaser costing the NHS money as a result of the medication he will eventually need to take, yet when you consider issues such as people taking drugs, eating too much, drinking too much, smoking too much, the costs associated with these issues completely dwarfs the costs a bug chaser might incur to the taxpayer, yet bug chasers are being scapegoated in this documentary as a burden to society and are being seen as taking a large chunk of NHS resources, which is not the case when you consider the number of people intentionally seroconverting, compared to those who are experiencing other health conditions as a direct result of their own actions.
According to an article released by The Health Foundation, the projected total number of diagnosed cases for the 10 conditions with the highest impact on health care use and mortality among those aged 30 years and older includes health conditions relating to drugs, diet, smoking and alcohol, with nothing on this list directly relating to HIV/AIDS conditions, so people need to stop associating HIV-positive individuals with taking resources away from the NHS and instead look more closely at others who are draining the system through other actions if this is something they want to do. In fact, people need to stop judging people altogether.
The video player splash image that was selected showing the gift giver wearing a mask is an image that portrays someone who looks frightening, which is an angle the producers appear to have been aiming towards. As the gift giver is being interviewed, and the bug chaser too, the presenter’s facial expressions showed his disturbed inner thoughts and feelings, which reinforces the fact that he was unable to maintain a neutral viewpoint and should not have been involved with this project, in fact, this project should never have been given the green light. The presenter also indicated that those who are participating in cruising are being exposed to HIV by the gift giver, yet he failed to mention that any of those men can immediately protect themselves by taking PrEP, yet he put the responsibility of the actions solely on the gift giver, which is wrong.
The documentary also failed to explore HIV exposure statistics, leading viewers to think that the moment someone is fucked bareback by an HIV-positive individual, they will became HIV-positive as a result. This is not the case and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the estimated probability of acquiring HIV from an infected source for receptive bareback anal sex is 138 cases per 10,000 exposures, or 1.38% and for insertive bareback anal sex is 11 cases per 10,000 exposures, or 0.11%. These number can increase based on other factors, such as 1,001 cases per 10,000 exposures (10.01%) for receptive anal sex where there is an acute HIV infection and 2,651 cases per 10,000 exposures (26.51%) for receptive anal sex when there is a sexually transmitted infection and acute HIV infection involved.
According to the National Health Service (NHS), PrEP is 99% effective against HIV transmission when taken correctly. For those who are going to get barebacked, taking a first double dose of PrEP 2 hours prior to getting raw fucked provides protection against the transmission of HIV, as PrEP prevents HIV from replicating inside the body. For those who fail to take PrEP 2 hours before getting barebacked; if they’re not already taking a daily dose of PrEP, can also protect themselves by taking a course of PEP by starting it within 72 hours of being exposed to HIV, something else that was also not discussed in the documentary.
This means those who wish to protect themselves from HIV prevention have the tools to do so, which is why it’s important for everyone to be responsible for protecting themselves, if this is what they want to do. Anyone who has bareback sex needs to understand and accept that sexually transmitted infections are commonplace (whether this involves heterosexual sex or homosexual sex), so if a person doesn’t want to become exposed to STIs, then they should use a condom or disengage from having sex and derive pleasure from an alternative source.
The presenter became infected by HIV at an early age, which was when PrEP was not yet available in the United Kingdom, however, this has now changed and more information is also known about HIV, due to people being more open to having discussions about sexual health, although documentaries like this might make people be afraid to speak or have conversations due to being concerned about being judged. PrEP became available in Scotland and Wales in 2017, in Northern Ireland in 2018 and in England in 2021, which was a long time after it became available in the United States, which was in 2012.
As PrEP is more widely available around the world, those who wish to protect themselves from HIV have a tool they can use. PrEP can be an important way to protect a person from those who stealth, who are people who intentionally lie about their HIV or deceive others, such as Daryll Rowe, who was convicted in the United Kingdom for deliberately transmitting HIV to people by deceiving them, which is a completely different situation to those who are giving their consent to be infected, however, other laws need to be considered about whether this is lawful, so it’s a more complex case and something that wasn’t thoroughly explored in the documentary.
Those who are HIV-positive can take antiretroviral medication to make their viral load undetectable, which is then considered to be untransmittable, which is a further way to reduce the spread of HIV, and it’s important to note that PrEP is 99% effective against the transmission of HIV from those who are detectable, so everyone has the ability to protect themselves if they choose to do so. As pointed out in the documentary, only a small number of people (less than 1% according to the academic featured briefly in the documentary) are bug chasers and gift givers, so this is not a massive public health issue like people might be thinking, so the cost to the taxpayer is not significant in comparison to other costs being spent on other health conditions, as demonstrated in the graphic above.
It’s important to reinforce that only a small number of people who are HIV-positive intentionally acquired HIV through bug chasing. I do feel for the presenter and many others became HIV-positive unintentionally and are now living with a life-long health condition that requires them to take antiretroviral medication for the rest of their lives when some people are trying to contract the virus intentionally. HIV is a serious health issue that can be managed through medication, which can be costly and is something anyone who is intentionally seeking the virus needs to consider as part of the decision as to whether they want to actively chase the bug before taking the next step. I also believe the presenter did have the best of intentions being involved with this documentary, but the documentary ended up being presented with bias, which is not something a documentary should incorporate.
What some may not know is that at least one person who offered to be interviewed was asked to undertake a psychiatric evaluation before participating in the documentary. This is rather disturbing and again highlights how invasive the producers were being to present their argument by alluding to bug chasers having a mental health condition, which again incorporates stigma and shame into the thought processes of others. I know a number of people who offered their valuable time to participate in this documentary, including Tim Tyler being one of them, yet their contributions were disregarded. Tim’s interview sadly didn’t make it into the documentary, which is a shame, as when you think about bug chasing, Tim Tyler is someone you will immediately think of.
Tim has a lot of knowledge and experience as a bug chaser and he recorded his interview and has asked for us to share this recording with you, which we are able to do, after checking with my friend who is a lawyer. We have been advised that because Tim made the recording of this conversation and due to all parties involved being aware that the conversation was being recorded, we are able to share Tim’s recording with you. In addition to this, the producers did not use any of Tim’s interview in their documentary and even if they did, the law would still have permitted for us to share Tim’s recording with you, as he has given us permission to do so. Just to reiterate, we are sharing Tim’s personal recording involving a conversation where all parties knew the conversation was being recorded and Tim has given us permission to share his personal copy of this recording with you.
Watch the Documentary:
Listen to Tim’s Interview:
References and External Resources:
- Common questions about Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP)
- Estimated Per-Act Probability of Acquiring HIV from an Infected Source
- Factors Increasing the Risk of Acquiring or Transmitting HIV
- Nine major challenges facing health and care in England
Channel 4 Bug Chasing Documentary Links:
- Bug Chasers: The Men Who Want HIV | Channel 4 Documentaries
- I Contracted HIV On Purpose | Ask The Mask | Channel 4 Documentaries
Featured Photo: Image by Matt Brown via Wikimedia Commons
Article ID: CC077
Version Control: 1.0 – March 24, 2024: Original article published.
This thing got me so angry. It doesn’t explain Our community at all, it vilifies us without actually looking into what we’re all about and why we are the way we are. His emotions too, so fake!
Yes, clearly it was presented as a documentary; but it wasn’t. To those who don’t understand us don’t also understand that this is at a visceral level within us. I can’t speak to those who didn’t live through the AIDS crisis. But it was very much like our recent Covid pandemic only our government decided it was a natural solution to “Gay Liberation” and thus did nothing to help. Eventually government agencies started paying closer attention as it began to take on attributes of a widespread public health problem. But that took five years.
There are a whole lot of us who were infected forty years ago who are still alive; and who endured the challenges of early treatments. To be poz now makes me one of them; but I only have one year now of direct personal experience. But, I will always experience each day poz until my last breath.
As already mentioned there were so many things wrong with the Channel 4 gifting documentary, but for me one of the saddest things was that an almost unique network television opportunity to explain the reasoning behind gifting was lost for the sake of an unfair hatchet job in front of three people who appeared determined to play up to the cameras.
Thank you for your comment Mark and I agree that this was a unique opportunity for a television network to explore more about bug chasing and gift giving, which would have been something that had never been documented in such a way, but sadly they couldn’t help themselves and decided to make this a controversial documentary instead. This was especially the case when they had a number of people who I know would have been able to provide a impressive level of insight, but they wasted the opportunity by taking the documentary in the direction they did. I believe the only way a proper documentary would be produced is if it was produced by bug chasers and gift givers themselves.
i appreciate the admins posting this video for our general viewing in order to discuss what the possible intent or objective the producers and journalist was looking to achieve .
although i’d agree that the reporting was anything but, the perspective was immediately skewed base on their own status and lifestyle. although i nitpick this in every UK produced doc i watch, is that my pet peeve is the “acting” and insertion of the reporters in this, and everything they report on.
the whinny pauses, the crying, their “morale” turmoil is so manufactured it’s difficult to take seriously as it’s more than clear they want the awards and not an unbiased presentation.
im glad members here are watching it despite the “views” logged that support the content, as i believe that in order to properly criticize something you have to begrudgingly consume the content, even if someone believes it to be trash. i’d file this under very weak and not quite a lazy effort, but close.
An email I sent to the film’s producers:
I agree with everything you have said in your email to the producer Tim and I’m glad you shared your thoughts with them, because it’s important for them to understand the damage they have caused and the stigma they have generated as a result of this “documentary”, which should be removed from YouTube and any other platform it’s currently on. I don’t think they even understand what they have done, as they were so focused on pursuing their own agenda at the expense of others, and it seems like nothing else mattered.
I will not be watching this stigmatic and prejudicial film. Not only would it be a waste of my time but I don’t want to treat Channel 4 as a unique viewer.
Thank you for your comment Tim and I completely understand. I was also disappointed by the way the documentary was presented and it did result in stigma for the bug chasing and gift giving community. It was also very short at only 20 minutes, which is not enough time for the subject to be discussed in-depth, but it was just enough time for viewers to be presented with a “documentary” that cast shame and stigma on our community and not only this, but also HIV-positive and gay people in general.
I briefly looked at some of the comments viewers shared and my thoughts are correct based on what some people had to say on the subject (after being ill-informed and presented with only some facts, with other important details left out). I’m sorry you gave them so much of your time and they never gave you the courtesy of including anything you discussed in the documentary. This is why I’m glad you shared your copy of the interview with us so we can share it with everyone here, because you had a lot to add on the subject. Thank you again for your comment Tim, I really appreciate it.
The amount of time provided for the interview was the least of my concerns. Instead, I feel most uneasy about the level of deception on behalf of the Channel 4 producers, who led me to believe the edited film would be non-judgmental and open minded. That was clearly a lie.
The second part of my above statement regarding a “unique viewer” is most important. The Channel 4 production team receives reports as to the popularity of their project, all of which is based upon internet visits. In essence, Channel 4 can count both returning viewers and unique (first time) visitors. I refuse to click on the video thereby sending the message that I am a unique viewer. Some things are better left unseen.
This part bothered me too Tim, because the first producer who reached out to me (not the one who ended up being the producer involved with this documentary) told me the following:
In response to these points that I initially raised with the producer when I responded to her, I would like to point out that Curious Chaser was featured on the documentary, the documentary was not explored with a balanced view (in my opinion) and the outcome resulted in creating controversy around the subject (in my opinion).
Perhaps if the original producer who mentioned these points had worked on the project, we might have seen something different, but perhaps not. What ended up happening is that the documentary resulted in producing stigma and there was a lot of judgement being directed towards bug chasers and gift givers and HIV-positive people in general.
That’s an excellent point about not wanting to become a unique viewer. Whatever the current number of views the video has received, we could equate that number or a similar number of people to now share these judgemental views that could lead to shame and perhaps even worse for members of our community and HIV-positive people in general, which is extremely disappointing.
I am not ashamed of my big chasing ways .they approached me to participate and I agreed to meet them in a local park..I am glad that I participated
Honestly I am glad you did as well. My issues with the documentary isn’t your interview; it is the whiny crap from the interviewer.
I’m also glad you participated in this documentary Anthony, as I was impressed with your interview and I’m glad you were honest and told Nathaniel what you thought and believed in, even though I could see he was uncomfortable with hearing the truth. I enjoyed listening to your interview and I was hoping there would have been more input from those who participated in the interviews so we could hear more about what bug chasing means to everyone, but I felt there was judgement associated with the questions being asked, which is what my issues were with the documentary. Your involvement was great and I enjoyed hearing what you had to say, I just wish the presenter had less to say in terms of being judgemental towards those who are bug chasers or gift givers.
Hello guys I am Anthony and it was me interviewed for bug chasing documentary.as a chaser I have no fears on what people think.feel free to contact me directly if you wish aplloyd05@gmail.com thanks Anthony
Thank you for being involved as an interviewee in this documentary Anthony, because even though the producer and presenter were focusing on a particular angle when they presented this documentary to their viewers, you spoke your truth and you didn’t buckle under the pressure of the further questions you were asked after you responded to the preview question. I also appreciate you sharing your personal email address and I will send you an email myself to thank you for your involvement in the documentary. I would also like to be clear that it was the way the documentary was presented that I was not happy with, but I was very impressed with both of you who were interviewed, because you were honest and answered questions without being afraid of what anyone thought.
Have you seen the one called “ I contracted HIV on purpose”(ask the mask ) if so what do you think of that one Jason
https://youtu.be/nDPIViVKZGY?si=jPdLxlbolcO9ch4M this is it on u tube
I started watching that one Gavin, but I stopped after a while, because after one of the three people asked whether the bug chaser was going to access medication via the NHS, the woman who asked the question started acting like she fully funds the NHS through her own taxes and the amount of judgement I saw from some of the expressions after a question was asked and then answered was enough to make me stop watching. I did acknowledge this program briefly in my article and added a link at the bottom and the timing of it was very interesting, considering this came out a week after the documentary was aired. Hopefully we won’t be seeing anything else about bug chasing from Channel 4 if these are the programs they are releasing about it.
Yep same with me I stoped it as hate people like her so judge mental of people think she’s the only one who pays for the NHS and England taxes ,it upset me with people like her as I get them judging me all the time, thinking that I am a burden to the NHS, and I’m a burden to the government claiming ESA and PIP people like her. Don’t think I worked hard very hard and I dropped to the floor due to nearly bleeding to death and people like her think now I can’t work I am lazy and a burden to the country, just because I can’t work anymore due to ill health of bowel and bladder cancer and severe pain problems, but I am on that loan money from PIP and ESA. I can’t even afford an electric wheelchair and they won’t help that but people like her think she’s special and she will never get ill and she’s the only one who pays into the pot She don’t think that I worked before I got sick and I wish I could work again. That’s why I asked you if you’ve watched it to see what you think of her. There are too many people like her out there.
I’m not a fan of the setup of this mask idea where a person is masked and people can ask questions like this, especially about subjects like bug chasing or HIV in general. Both of the women were very judgemental and this was something I noticed from only watching a couple of minutes of the program, so that was enough for me. I’m sure a small portion of her taxes goes to the NHS and the government redirects other parts of her tax contribution to other areas of government, yet she thinks she’s the only one contributing so she can feel better about herself for saying the things she’s saying. As the person wearing the mask stated, he contributes to the NHS too, but she ignored this fact. I think when the question was asked about what he does for a job, they were trying to get him on that angle so they could keep subjecting him to further interrogation.
I’m sorry to hear about the judgement you are experiencing and this is why things need to change and I was hoping this documentary might have been something that provided some hope after the media has plagued us with controversial stories over the years, but this program was not to be and I don’t think I would be willing to trust anyone with an interview, as they all seem to base their programs from the same angle. People will always try to judge or criticise others and it sounds like this has happened to you, which I am very sorry about, so we need to try to ignore these people, which is easier said than done. You’re right when you say there are too many people like her out there and television shows like the Channel 4 documentary feed people like this, so when television networks pump out trash like this, society will never learn to respect others, it will continue to judge, which is why we need to protect ourselves the best way we can. Please take care and I hope you won’t let these two Channel 4 shows upset you, because they’re not worth it.
You’re right they are not worth it but it does hit you hard when you hear people like this makes me feel do some of the home Nurses think this about me and others when they come round to help you and when they cook for you and bed bath you so on are they thinking the same as the people in documentary is like this and do some of the doctors that’s helped me though the many surgeries that I have think the same , I have had loads of health problems and yes lots getting worse but as you say they don’t pay for the whole of the NHS and so on but how she and some other make out you would think they are the only ones that pay for the NHS
It would hit you hard when you hear people say this and I’m sorry about this situation. I hope the nurses and other people who come to help you don’t think this way, I’m sure some might have an opinion, but hopefully they respect you and treat you well. The NHS is there for people who need it and many contribute to make sure this is the case. I’m sorry this documentary has affected you so much, but please know that not everyone is judgemental or disrespectful, many people are understanding or want to understand, so these are the people we need to acknowledge. I do wish you the very best and I hope you are given high quality treatment so your health is looked after the best way possible.
I am fairly new at life HIV Poz. But all medical care has been compassionate and well done even though I am open about my poz status. I make sure to mention it on ER intakes although it is their responsibility to read my chart; which is clear on the host of medical conditions I experience. None of them have broached causes of how I arrived at the point of discovery. Our practitioners appropriately advise patients of preventive steps. But we don’t punish people for illness. Nor should we. If we start putting up “we’ll treat you if you didn’t bring it on yourself” barriers; there would be little medical care left.
One thing I don’t expect; but appreciate is drug assistance. There are social benefits to antivirals and from a public health perspective, it makes sense to ensure access is attainable by everyone. But one should not expect free meds. CoPay is common for all meds and ARVs should be no exception.
Gavin there does seem to be some social viewpoints emerging to demonize those who get sick as so deserving of it no care should be given. That was the USA executive point of view in the 80’s. It’s a disease for those homo’s; let ’em die… I am most hopeful we don’t return to that as result of misguided “documentaries” which shame heart attack, cancer, etc the same way because one’s own behavior brought it on. Disease doesn’t consider ones behavior no matter what trends show. To let it run rampant to eliminate the undesirables has been done before. Do we really need to repeat that and relearn that we hurt more innocent when we do that?
Masked documentary. Yeah they are at once decrying candor while hidden. Cognitive dissonance on display.
Thanks Jason and so glad you’re back more regularly. Truly a disappointing documentary whose purpose is unclear. You’re correct an example of poor journalism.
You and I both had occasion to talk with these people when they joined Curious Chaser. I am glad we trusted our instincts and limited their reach into Curious as obviously we were a focus.
It does have me thinking about further changes to this site. I think we need to move virtually all content to the backroom and create a new discussion forum for those signing up. That way we have time to vet them before we turn them loose within our site.
I fear if we don’t do this our ability to exist at all in a number of jurisdictions will be taken away.
It’s great to be back again PozBear after my vacation and very soon I will be creating my new account and enjoying spending time here again and interacting with everyone, as we have a wonderful and supportive community here.
This documentary had so much potential to be good, yet those involved chose to explore a particular tangent and one that is at the expense of others and demonstrates that the those involved did not have the intention of exploring the subject harmoniously or fairly, they instead chose to create controversy under the guise of being curious about it. Why would they say it was extremely difficult to find bug chasers and gift givers, then make out like we are everywhere putting the whole community at risk. It does not make sense and neither does the purpose of the documentary, unless it was purely about generating ratings, because this equates to advertising income.
We trusted our instincts when we were first approached and we were right. We always knew they had the potential to take the documentary in a particular direction, even though we hoped that as a professional production company and television network was involved, the documentary would be fully balanced and informative, but this wasn’t to be the case. This is why I always listen to my instincts and we did what we could to protect our community, which is something I look forward to continuing helping you with in the future.
It’s important for us not to be afraid of being put under the spotlight like this, because bug chasing and gift giving really does involve a small number of people and this is why our online community exists, because it’s here to help us understand why we feel this way and provides us with an opportunity to share information with those of us who are on the same page.
For this reason, we are not going anywhere and we must continue to protect our community so we don’t end up shutting ourselves off from seeking support and understanding, as this can create more harm than good. I am here to help you in any way I can and I look forward to having further discussions with you about this. I hope everyone has had an opportunity to listen to Tim’s raw audio from his interview and found what he had to say insightful, as I most certainly did.
Wow! What a great article. This article presents more information and with less bias than the entire 20 minute “documentary!” The bias is obvious from the very beginning the hands of these two makers of the film and it was clear that the narrator was not truly seeking answers to his questions that did not agree with his preconceived views. That prejudice is also obvious in the interview with Tim and thank you for including that.
Thank you for reading this article Tom and I’m glad you liked it. The producers started working on their bug chasing project in September last year (probably earlier than this), as September is when they approached me and created an account here, so it took them about 6 months to research, produce and release this documentary and I put my article together in a few hours on the weekend. I really wish those who worked on this documentary used Curious Chaser as a resource to learn from rather than using it against bug chasers by trying to find material that matched their narrative, which was bound to happen when this website includes all facets of bug chasing. Those who participated in the interviews trusted those involved with producing this documentary by answering some very personal questions and these people did not receive respect or appreciation in return.
The presenter stated that he really wanted to talk to a chaser, then when he did, his facial expression and responses showed he was uncomfortable hearing what was being said. I agree with what you’re saying, this documentary was not about finding answers but to instead creating a perception in people’s minds that doesn’t give them the full information to give them a proper understanding. I’m still unsure what the purpose of this documentary was about, other than to introduce a controversial subject to viewers that’s designed to cultivate anger and disgust in their minds, which competes with the presenter’s statement about trying to smash stigma and shame surrounding those who are HIV-positive.
It’s disappointing that the production team had access to people with knowledge and experience, such as Tim for example and went to the effort of interviewing him, yet they didn’t include any of his insights in the documentary. From some of the questions they asked, you could see the approach the producers were taking, which was reinforced when you saw the presenter and the producer talking about infiltrating online websites and trying to dig up dirt on people in the documentary. Tim did a wonderful job by ensuring he spoke the truth and clarified his position and he did so in a manner that was respectful, which I don’t think the documentary was being to bug chasers and gift givers or even those who are HIV-positive and never chased the bug.
So out of this situation, we are given insight through Tim’s conversation with the presenter and producer of the documentary, so I hope if anyone watches this documentary, they also listen to Tim’s interview so they can be given the full context about bug chasing from someone who has a vast amount of experience on the subject. Again, why would they not include someone with so much experience in the documentary and the answer is that what Tim said gave insight that made more sense and made you think, which does not appear to be what the aim of this documentary was about, which can be ascertained by watching the presentation, which again should be considered a short film and not a documentary.
Hi Jason, another excellent article and very happy to talk to you. Well an another poz men passing his frustrations and shame in this not a documentary” my opinion with his freak masked face. Poor Tim! How many times, have had heard ah your gay! You should have AIDS. This doc… will destroyed what’s the poz tried to do
Mean fighting the stigma and shame. Thanks again Jason
Thank you for your comment Dark. I will be returning to the website in full capacity this weekend and I look forward to talking to you more upon my return.
I agree with you about this documentary creating stigma, which if this Channel 4 documentary didn’t do alone, then their followup companion series feature on bug chasing and gift giving is sure to do.
I am very disappointed that Tim’s interview did not make it into the documentary, especially when he has a lot of information and insight to share. They didn’t even include a few seconds of audio from his interview, yet he gave them over an hour of his time and they also rescheduled their interview with him, then they excluded any of what he shared from the interview due to time constraints, which shows a lack of appreciation or common courtesy.
I have been accused of having AIDS many times by people when they found out I was gay (even though I’m currently HIV-negative) and these people didn’t know that you need to be HIV-positive before you have AIDS, which is why informing people about HIV/AIDS is important, but documentaries like this that could have been more informative have in fact created stigma and shame, which is what the presenter said he’s trying to smash. The only thing he has smashed in my opinion is people’s courage to speak openly and be authentic and instead, some people will now be afraid to be honest with themselves, which could drive them deeper into places where there’s no support available to them.
Hi Jason, Glad to see you back here, you’ve been missed!
And thank you for your words and warnings about this video. I do plan to watch it, but, like you, I don’t expect much in the way of neutrality or even-handedness, especially after hearing the unused interview with Tim which was obviously too provocative for them to use and didn’t fit into their predetermined narrative.
Thanks Van, I will be making my official return this weekend, so this was a warmup I guess you could say.
This documentary overall is worth watching, but you just need to be mindful that some bias exists and the presenter may not have intended for the final version of the documentary to come across this way. Neutrality is missing and this is partially because of the impact being HIV-positive has had on the presenter’s life, which has affected him and his passion towards educating others has resulted in emotion and some missing information from appearing in the documentary.
I actually think the presenter has missed an opportunity to share his experiences about living with HIV and being able to educate others by instead inflicting stigma on bug chasers and gift givers, which has in turn created shame and blame for many who are HIV-positive. Some HIV-positive people might now worry about anyone who has watched this documentary having negative thoughts about them being positive.