TRUVADA: Why are we ALL not taking this???!!!!

[Westheangelino]

So, I had heard about PEP (post exposure prophylactic) to combat transmission of HIV, but I had always assumed it was a fail safe akin to the morning after pill for pregnancy that had serious side effects, wasn't nearly 100% effective, and was not covered by insurance. Low and behold, the FDA has approved a drug commonly used to treat HIV infected patients for HIV PREVENTION. The fact that every LGBT forum, newspaper, etc. is not broadcasting this from the hill tops is truly insane to me. The fact that the mainstream media has not reported this at all sickens me as it is just another example of everyone turning a blind eye to the AIDS genocide of the last 30 yrs. Read the posted article. Some of the statements in it are utterly ridiculous.

http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2013/09/09/hiv-prevention-new-condom-truvada-pill-prep?page=full

[Prospero]

Genocide?!!!!!!

[LibertyHarkness]

it has potentially really bad long term effects on the liver if used by healthy people ... also its not 100% efective its in medical reports has been stated potentially 90% effective ...

There has been talk of this on some industry forums for the adult sector... again its such a new drug and the possible side effects to liver damage are pretty significant ..

I had a chat with the medical clinic i get tested at and they have a huge wing that deals with HIV specifically. and they advised the risk to liver damage for someone say like an adult model to use this for say 7- 10 years is fairly significiant ..

Myself fuck that ... I would rather just keep on testing and wrap up ..

[Westheangelino]

Nothing has made me consider getting Obamacare until this. This is a human rights issue. No more, no less. Every gay man, transsexual, and trans lover should be told to go on this drug immediately.

[Jericho]

Nothing has made me consider getting Obamacare until this. This is a human rights issue. No more, no less. Every gay man, transsexual, and trans lover should be told to go on this drug immediately.

Or we could employ a little bit of commonsense and take some personal responsibility for our lives! :shrug

[Westheangelino]

^ How is this NOT doing that??? Half of all men who have sex with men will become HIV positive by the time they are fifty if current rates continue. We have plateaued in our efforts to combat this endemic disease through condoms. Let's live in reality. I'm not saying that we should go back to the utter hedonism of the 70's (yet), but the reality is that people WILL be careless and not use a condom every time. So, why not have this extra safety net?

[Torris]

Do you run into the problem of using a prophylatic where the virus (also an evolutionary creature after all) develops a super strain to combat the med

Akin to the lessening effect of antibiotics for staph infection, etc

I was laid up in the hospital two years ago with staph infection. One of the reason my doctor said the antibiotics worked so well for me was because I hadn't had a scrip since I was in grade school.

I know people who take antibiotics for seasonal allergy. Doctors give them out like candy.

Or is this comparison (truvada v. antibiotic tolerance) apples and oranges.

Just guessing with my comment

[Westheangelino]

Do you run into the problem of using a prophylatic where the virus (also an evolutionary creature after all) develops a super strain to combat the med

Akin to the lessening effect of antibiotics for staph infection, etc

I was laid up in the hospital two years ago with staph infection. One of the reason my doctor said the antibiotics worked so well for me was because I hadn't had a scrip since I was in grade school.

I know people who take antibiotics for seasonal allergy. Doctors give them out like candy.

Or is this comparison (truvada v. antibiotic tolerance) apples and oranges.

Just guessing with my comment

All of the articles I've read breach this issue. Basically, if you use this like a party drug (i..e you only take it after a night of vigorous barebacking and drugs) then a resistant strain is possible. Used correctly, this isn't going to happen.

[Torris]

All of the articles I've read breach this issue. Basically, if you use this like a party drug (i..e you only take it after a night of vigorous barebacking and drugs) then a resistant strain is possible. Used correctly, this isn't going to happen.
=======

Absolutely right. In my case after they put me on two oral antibiotics as opposed to the IV I had in ICU every single doctor and pharmacist was adamant I take every pill for both scrips no matter how well I was feeling.

So to your point: can sex workers be prescribed truvada in perpetuity by their doctors? What are the limits of such a program?

[Westheangelino]

^ That is EXACTLY what some doctors are doing. Sex workers, men who have sex with men, IV drug users, transsexuals......ALL are groups disproportionately infected with HIV year after year. All should go on Truvada. Think of it as a birth control pill for the anally inclined.

[Jericho]

Half of all men who have sex with men will become HIV positive by the time they are fifty if current rates continue.

Great statistic.
Got any others you can pull out of your arse?



Let's live in reality. I'm not saying that we should go back to the utter hedonism of the 70's (yet), but the reality is that people WILL be careless and not use a condom every time.

But, we should trust them to take a pill everyday?
Yeah, good luck with that.

[Westheangelino]

^ That stat was pulled from the CDC. Not my ass. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/epidemic-1-2-of-gay-men-will-have-hiv-by-age-50-if-current-rates-continue-w


You present a circular argument. You're saying we shouldn't trust gay men to take a pill every day. Gay men DON'T always use condoms and NEVER will. So, what would you have them do exactly? And are we also to believe that hundreds of millions of women are capable of taking a pill every day to prevent pregnancy (pills that often have harsher side effects than truvada), but a man is incapable of taking a pill every day to prevent something that will KILL him????

[RobynBlakeTS]

This all just focused on HIV what about:

"There is also validity to fears about “barebacking.” Even if PrEP protects against HIV, condomless sex still invites other STDs. Some, like syphilis, gonorrhea, and herpes, are fairly easily treatable. But in recent years, there have been outbreaks among HIV-positive men of sexually transmitted hepatitis C, for which treatment is improving but still difficult, expensive, and imperfect. In certain parts of the world, such as Japan and India, a new antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea has rung alarm bells of a new STD epidemic. Simply put, nobody knows what new infections lie in wait down the road."

Also Truvada does not stop you being infected with HIV, you still get infected, Truvada only stops it spreading but as soon as you miss a tablet or stop taking them the virus which is their in your system will spread.

"that’s an approach called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP. PrEP means taking a daily pill (brand name, Truvada) for months or years. This keeps medication in your body to keep HIV from making copies of itself and spreading infection through your body anytime you are exposed"

[Chaos]

Nothing has made me consider getting Obamacare until this. This is a human rights issue. No more, no less. Every gay man, transsexual, and trans lover should be told to go on this drug immediately.

What kind of idiot are you? TOLD to take something? You say human rights and then say that? Shut the fuck up. Let people MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS. I'm not about to destroy my liver just so I can not wear a condom..FUCK THAT.

I can make up statistics too : 100% of people reading your posts think you're a moron. SEE? Though mine is probably a bit closer to realistic...

And it is FAR easier to forget a pill than it is to forget to wear a condom.


^ That stat was pulled from the CDC. Not my ass. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/epidemic-1-2-of-gay-men-will-have-hiv-by-age-50-if-current-rates-continue-w


You present a circular argument. You're saying we shouldn't trust gay men to take a pill every day. Gay men DON'T always use condoms and NEVER will. So, what would you have them do exactly? And are we also to believe that hundreds of millions of women are capable of taking a pill every day to prevent pregnancy (pills that often have harsher side effects than truvada), but a man is incapable of taking a pill every day to prevent something that will KILL him????
NO ONE ALWAYS uses condoms,it's not a gay issue,it's a people issue.Not every woman takes their pill everyday either, I have plenty of exes to prove that,and plenty of stories from others to prove it too. Just the fact that you WANT to go back to absolute hedonism,with everything going around,everything happening to people,is disturbing.

[Westheangelino]

Great statistic.
Got any others you can pull out of your arse?



But, we should trust them to take a pill everyday?
Yeah, good luck with that.


This all just focused on HIV what about:

"There is also validity to fears about “barebacking.” Even if PrEP protects against HIV, condomless sex still invites other STDs. Some, like syphilis, gonorrhea, and herpes, are fairly easily treatable. But in recent years, there have been outbreaks among HIV-positive men of sexually transmitted hepatitis C, for which treatment is improving but still difficult, expensive, and imperfect. In certain parts of the world, such as Japan and India, a new antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea has rung alarm bells of a new STD epidemic. Simply put, nobody knows what new infections lie in wait down the road."

Also Truvada does not stop you being infected with HIV, you still get infected, Truvada only stops it spreading but as soon as you miss a tablet or stop taking them the virus which is their in your system will spread.

"that’s an approach called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP. PrEP means taking a daily pill (brand name, Truvada) for months or years. This keeps medication in your body to keep HIV from making copies of itself and spreading infection through your body anytime you are exposed"


Wrong wrong wrong wrong. TRUVADA PREVENTS INFECTION. PERIOD. The virus doesn't lurk inside your body waiting for you to miss a pill.

As for making up statistics, any stat I have mentioned has come from the CDC or some other reputable agency or study. Google Truvada and you will see article after article about. It's a miracle drug. Plain and simple. It also has no effect on your liver, sir. Not sure where you dug that one up.

As for being TOLD to do something, would you object to people being TOLD to be vaccinated if we had an HIV vaccine? You just said, wear a condom. The only reason you are doing that is because you have been TOLD to do that for 30 years now, because it was the only way to prevent HIV infection. Guess what? It's not anymore!

[RobynBlakeTS]

From http://www.truvada.com/hiv-treatment:

TRUVADA can cause serious side effects:
Too much lactic acid in your blood (lactic acidosis), which is a serious medical emergency. Symptoms of lactic acidosis include weakness or being more tired than usual, unusual muscle pain, being short of breath or fast breathing, nausea, vomiting, stomach-area pain, cold or blue hands and feet, feeling dizzy or lightheaded, and/or fast or abnormal heartbeats.
Serious liver problems. Your liver may become large and tender, and you may develop fat in your liver. Symptoms of liver problems include your skin or the white part of your eyes turns yellow, dark “tea-colored” urine, light-colored stools, loss of appetite for several days or longer, nausea, and/or stomach-area pain.
You may be more likely to get lactic acidosis or serious liver problems if you are female, very overweight (obese), or have been taking TRUVADA for a long time. In some cases, these serious conditions have led to death. Call your healthcare provider right away if you have any symptoms of these conditions.
Worsening of hepatitis B (HBV) infection. If you also have HBV and take TRUVADA, your hepatitis may become worse if you stop taking TRUVADA. Do not stop taking TRUVADA without first talking to your healthcare provider. If your healthcare provider tells you to stop taking TRUVADA, they will need to watch you closely for several months to monitor your health. TRUVADA is not approved for the treatment of HBV


And more:

Serious side effects of TRUVADA may also include:
New or worsening kidney problems, including kidney failure. Your healthcare provider may do blood tests to check your kidneys before and during treatment with TRUVADA. If you develop kidney problems, your healthcare provider may tell you to take TRUVADA less often, or to stop taking TRUVADA.
Bone problems, including bone pain or bones getting soft or thin, which may lead to fractures. Your healthcare provider may do tests to check your bones.
Changes in body fat can happen in people taking HIV-1 medicines.
Changes in your immune system. If you have HIV-1 infection and start taking HIV-1 medicines, your immune system may get stronger and begin to fight infections. This may cause minor symptoms such as fever, but can also lead to serious problems. Tell your healthcare provider if you have any new symptoms after you start taking TRUVADA.

The most common side effects of TRUVADA are:
In people taking TRUVADA with other HIV-1 medicines to treat HIV-1 infection, common side effects include: diarrhea, nausea, tiredness, headache, dizziness, depression, problems sleeping, abnormal dreams, and rash.
In people taking TRUVADA to reduce the risk of getting HIV-1 infection, common side effects include: headache, stomach-area (abdomen) pain, and decreased weight.
Tell your healthcare provider if you have any side effects that bother you or don’t go away.

[LibertyHarkness]

It does have potential damage to your liver .. go check again, or better still go speak to a certified board professional that has done the research on the clinical trials ... The clinic i visit every 2weeks has a vast array of info on this treatment etc .... it is a heavy drug that can have some serious long term issues on your liver .. increased liver size/. spotting etc .. not saying all people will get that ,but its hardly a Risk Free Drug ... more fool any person that think it is and pumps this shit into their body for 10years etc .. come back in 10 years an see what state your liver maybe in or may not ..

Myself personally I would not stick something else into my system that can affect my liver just like my hormones are doing slowly over time as well .. I would rather use common sense and only have sex with tested people and wear protection ...

Lets see how this drug performs over the next 5 years before we all start branding the miracle cure ..

[deangamble1967]

Should we be aware of this drug, absolutely, but not as an alternative to safe sex and testing. I had a condom break on me whilst abroad about 6 years ago and so the next day went to a local clinic and was prescribed a 30 day course to reduce (not stop) the likelihood of any infection I was told about 90% if taken with 24 hrs of exposure.

Well all I know is my test 3 months later was negative (but probably would have been anyway) but the 30 days I took the drug for I felt sick and nauseous a side effect of the drug and not something i would ever want to take again

[RobynBlakeTS]

Also you keep ignoring all the other risks of barebacking, all the STD's that you would be open to getting such as:

Warts, Herpes, Hepatitis, Chlamydia, Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, etc

[Westheangelino]

All drugs have side effects. Thanks for pointing out the liver concerns, I was unaware.

^The nausea, from what I've read is not common to everyone, and usually goes away after a few weeks. Also, let's stop confusing Truvada with PEP. They are not necessarily interchangeable. Truvada should be taken every day. PEP (which truvada is a part of) is often more harsh and invasive.

If everyone starts taking this now, we can make HIV a rarity within a generation

[Westheangelino]

Condoms are not effective against warts or herpes. All the other STI's are easily transmitted orally as well. If you think anyone but sex workers cover their cocks when being sucked then you are truly delusional

[RobynBlakeTS]

All drugs have side effects. Thanks for pointing out the liver concerns, I was unaware.

But you said you've done lots of research on this? this was on the own drugs website.

[RobynBlakeTS]

Condoms are not effective against warts or herpes. All the other STI's are easily transmitted orally as well. If you think anyone but sex workers cover their cocks when being sucked then you are truly delusional

Condoms are effective against warts and herpes. Its proved fact that they reduce the risk, as such viruses are passed from skin to skin contact. Yes there is a risk with oral but actual sex the risk can be reduced by use of condoms.

[Jericho]

All drugs have side effects. Thanks for pointing out the liver concerns, I was unaware.


Oh wait, you were unaware?

You'd think one of those many cdc reports you'd read when you were gathering your statistics would have mentioned that!

[Westheangelino]

I just don't see what the issue is here. If this drug came out 20 years ago, there would be a line around the block. However, something that can save lives is being pushed into the closet and not talked about because of everyone's moralist garbage.

[RobynBlakeTS]

I just don't see what the issue is here. If this drug came out 20 years ago, there would be a line around the block. However, something that can save lives is being pushed into the closet and not talked about because of everyone's moralist garbage.

There wouldn't of been a issue if people had practiced safe sex 20 years ago instead of being hedonistic and selfish and thinking they didn't need condoms due to no threat of pregnancy.

[Westheangelino]

^??? Are you talking about the 70's or the 80's or the 90's?

If you are referring to the gay culture of the 70's, you are ridiculous. Were they supposed to predict a previously unheard of virus???? You sound like Larry Kramer, who even before AIDS was saying the wages of gay sin is death

[Tapatio]

Also you keep ignoring all the other risks of barebacking, all the STD's that you would be open to getting such as:

Warts, Herpes, Hepatitis, Chlamydia, Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, etc

A porn industry study claims 25% of actors/actresses have gonorrhea or chlamydia. The numbers are higher, I'd bet, elsewhere in the skin trade.


Why risk it, right?

[Westheangelino]

^To work in porn in Los Angeles, you must get rigorously tested. All performers should go on Truvada immediately

[RobynBlakeTS]

^??? Are you talking about the 70's or the 80's or the 90's?

If you are referring to the gay culture of the 70's, you are ridiculous. Were they supposed to predict a previously unheard of virus???? You sound like Larry Kramer, who even before AIDS was saying the wages of gay sin is death

No they weren't but there was plenty of already established diseases about that they should of cared about.

[Westheangelino]

^ All of which were curable with a shot or a pill. I just don't see what the point is of judging people who lived and died 30 years ago. It has no relevance to what is in front of us right now: the best option ever for reducing the continued spread of HIV.

[RobynBlakeTS]

^ All of which were curable with a shot or a pill. I just don't see what the point is of judging people who lived and died 30 years ago. It has no relevance to what is in front of us right now: the best option ever for reducing the continued spread of HIV.

No herpes and warts are not curable. The point is peoples actions have responsibilities and consequences. The people back then were of the same selfish attitudes of you and that allowed the HIV epidemic of the 80's and 90's as a result of their me me me and my pleasure attitude.

[Westheangelino]

Well, then by all means, let's all stop fucking, stop driving cars, stop eating GMO's, stop eating meat, stop eating sugar, etc. etc.

[RobynBlakeTS]

Well, then by all means, let's all stop fucking, stop driving cars, stop eating GMO's, stop eating meat, stop eating sugar, etc. etc.

Well that's a childish reply:

Lets have safe sex
Lets encourage government and business to invest in integrated transport network and clean emission cars
Lets cut are sugar and meat intake for environmental and health reasons

Its called social and civic duty and responsibility. Its about being something more then you are, instead of a selfish irresponsible slave to your base emotions.

[Westheangelino]

^ I agree with all of that. Why can't a pill that is proven to prevent the transmission of a deadly at worst, costly at best disease be part of the discussion too instead of dismissed?

[RobynBlakeTS]

^ I agree with all of that. Why can't a pill that is proven to prevent the transmission of a deadly at worst, costly at best disease be part of the discussion too instead of dismissed?

Because it has serious health side effects and doesn't help prevent other STD's as I have mentioned before.

[Westheangelino]

^ So do the following: smoking, eating American sized portions at every meal, driving, etc. But if there was a pill that came along and prevented lung cancer would it not be front page news??? See my point?

[RobynBlakeTS]

^ So do the following: smoking, eating American sized portions at every meal, driving, etc. But if there was a pill that came along and prevented lung cancer would it not be front page news??? See my point?

Last time I checked they don't help spread STD's. I understand your point about the news completely and agree about that aspect. The issue, is people such as yourself though see such a pill as a right and endorsement to go bareback left right and centre because it prevents HIV but you don't stop to think and consider all the other STD's you put yourself at risk for and also that you and others like you will help spread it and cause an epidemic of those STD's.

[broncofan]

People are skeptical for several reasons. You have on many occasions misstated health risks associated with sexual activity, including when you said that it is impossible to contract HIV as long as you are the insertive partner. Second, it sounds like an excuse to be reckless and engage in riskier sexual behaviors, which again, given the source of this information (someone who advocates bareback sex and routinely downplays the risk associated with it) is a sound assumption. Finally, the long-term risks of fda approved drugs are not known for decades. So it is not without cost even if the exact nature of that cost is not now known.

By all means take the drug, but not everyone is going to get prescription medication so they can have unprotected sex with anonymous partners.

[Donkey]

Last time I checked they don't help spread STD's. I understand your point about the news completely and agree about that aspect. The issue, is people such as yourself though see such a pill as a right and endorsement to go bareback left right and centre because it prevents HIV but you don't stop to think and consider all the other STD's you put yourself at risk for and also that you and others like you will help spread it and cause an epidemic of those STD's.
I think you've fabricated this position for him. I just read all of his posts in this thread and don't see that he's advocating any such thing.

[broncofan]

Robyn makes a good point also. I didn't think of that. Many other stds other than HIV. Does it prevent hepatitis? Herpes? Warts? Robyn seems to indicate it would do nothing for the latter two. So, it couldn't responsibly be used as a license to engage in more unprotected sex than one already engages in.

[Westheangelino]

Thanks, Donkey. To be clear I am not advocating anything more than giving people access and knowledge about a life saving drug. Read any article about this drug. The doctors currently dolling it out as a preventative measure live in the reality that although condoms are effective at stopping the spread of HIV, they have not been effective at radically lowering infection rates. This is just the truth that people crave intimacy and won't always wear a condom. However, pretty much no one (including myself) is advocating a return to the 70's bath house culture. While it's a fun fantasy, even a pig like myself couldn't envision getting ten loads a night in a stinking steam room with all manner of infectious material other than HIV floating about. Maybe once a month, and I think that's what leading physicians are banking on. Taking this drug requires you to get screened and requires continued testing, which arguably has been more effective at halting the spread of HIV than anything else.

[christianxxx]

A porn industry study claims 25% of actors/actresses have gonorrhea or chlamydia. The numbers are higher, I'd bet, elsewhere in the skin trade.


Why risk it, right?

thats a bullshit statistic. first of all, neither of those are incurable, so you contract it and then treat it and its gone. if you are saying 25 percent have EVER had clam or gon then ok maybe that is true. but how much higher is that then the general population?

the fact is that the adult industry is highly regulated with 14 day testing for clam, gon, hep c, syph, and hiv. it is much safer than the general population.

[christianxxx]

i have to agree 100 percent with West Angelino on this one. the FDA has approved a drug which can decrease the chances of HIV by many many fold. People should be shouting about this from the rooftops. But the US pharmaceutical industry and medical industry and the HIV lobbying arm plus the condom companies all don't want a cure for HIV, they want a managed treatment so they can continue to make money.

And let's talk about the condom. Where is it that the condom protects against anything? Show me on the condom itself where it says that? Oh that's right it doesn't bc the condom is bullshit. It protects the female against pregnancy...most of the time. syphilis, hep C those are skin to skin and render the condom worthless. Anyone who thinks the condom is 100 percent is just as retarded as thinking truvada is 100 percent.

[Tapatio]

thats a bullshit statistic.

OK. UCLA is really bad at science, and the CDC is a right wing fundamentalist sham.

[christianxxx]

no shit, one more time since you can't read....1 in 4 has EVER contracted clam or gonorrhea. Hey genius, thats for thousands and thousands of scenes over years. What does that have to do with anything? its no higher than the general population.

The only difference is that adult performers have to test every 2 weeks which gives a public record of every single positive. There is no cheating or lying. You have our EXACT statistics.

One more time, clamydia & gonorrhea are a treatable STD that goes away in less than a week. Big deal. What's your point and what does that have to do with Truvada?

[christianxxx]

BTW the UCLA study was funded by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation which is attacking the porn industry for not using condoms. And of course the AHF is funded by the condom companies. lol And the CDC has absolutely zero to do with that statistic other than being the host of the conference where UCLA talked about it. Try again.

[Tapatio]

I understand the backers- but I can't believe UCLA is making up the numbers.

Short of a rebuttal of the data, the funding means nothing.

[Tapatio]

I can see how you'd be 100% unbiased though.

And the CDC, in the interest of fairness, regularly hosts disreputable scientists. I see how that makes a difference.

Oh,yeah-


Lol, etc.

Forgot that part.

[Jericho]

And let's talk about the condom. Where is it that the condom protects against anything?

Since you asked....
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm





Show me on the condom itself where it says that? Oh that's right it doesn't bc the condom is bullshit. It protects the female against pregnancy...most of the time. syphilis, hep C those are skin to skin and render the condom worthless.

Hardly worthless, old chap..




Anyone who thinks the condom is 100 percent is just as retarded as thinking truvada is 100 percent.

Has anyone said the condom is 100% safe or effective?

[broncofan]

Just to correct the record. Hepatitis c is very difficult to spread through sexual intercourse (I don't think it's skin to skin), but it is possible and condom use may help prevent transmission
http://hepc.liverfoundation.org/diagnosis/sex-and-hep-c/

Hepatitis B, on the other hand, is more likely to be spread through intercourse, and condom use can prevent transmission.
http://www.webmd.com/hepatitis/hepatitis-and-sex-frequently-asked-questions?page=2

Edit: actually if you go to the first page of the webmd link it says that Hep C is transmitted through contact with an infected person's blood. Hep B, on the other hand, is more likely to be transmitted during sex. The link says it is 50-100 times easier to get Hep B than HIV through intercourse with an infected person and since body fluids carry the virus, condoms provide some enhancement of safety, though obviously not ultimate protection.

[MrBest]

Condoms are effective against warts and herpes. Its proved fact that they reduce the risk, as such viruses are passed from skin to skin contact. Yes there is a risk with oral but actual sex the risk can be reduced by use of condoms.
condoms only protect the area that is covered which means shit in regards to skin viruses like herpes and hpv

[MrBest]

thats a bullshit statistic. first of all, neither of those are incurable, so you contract it and then treat it and its gone. if you are saying 25 percent have EVER had clam or gon then ok maybe that is true. but how much higher is that then the general population?

the fact is that the adult industry is highly regulated with 14 day testing for clam, gon, hep c, syph, and hiv. it is much safer than the general population.Does the industry rely on PCR or P24 Antigen testing?

[christianxxx]

GEN-Probe APTIMA HIV-1 RNA Qualitative Assay

[MrBest]

GEN-Probe APTIMA HIV-1 RNA Qualitative Assaydo you have to go through additional testing, it seems supplemental

Intended Use
The APTIMA® HIV-1 RNA Qualitative Assay is an in vitro nucleic acid assay system for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) in human plasma. It is intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of HIV-1 infection, including acute or primary infection. Presence of HIV-1 RNA in the plasma of patients without antibodies to HIV-1 is indicative of acute or primary HIV-1 infection.
The APTIMA HIV-1 RNA Qualitative Assay may also be used as an additional test, when it is reactive, to confirm HIV-1 infection in an individual whose specimen is repeatedly reactive for HIV-1 antibodies.
This assay is not intended for use in screening blood or plasma donors.

http://www.gen-probe.com/pdfs/pi/501623-EN-RevD.pdf

[christianxxx]

nope same test every 2 weeks.

[kaientai]

Truvada is ment to redeuce the viral load for HIV infected people eventualy making the virus undetectable, but it is still there. It is by no means a get out of HIV for free (well free its also quite expensive) card. Plus al the other health concerns allready mentioned

[Prospero]

The last refuge of a scoundrel.

Even if the bug is undetectable you can still infect others.

I am very suspicious of Westeatangelino

For the time being for those not in a rock solid relationship its go protected all the way....

[Westheangelino]

The last refuge of a scoundrel.

Even if the bug is undetectable you can still infect others.

I am very suspicious of Westeatangelino

For the time being for those not in a rock solid relationship its go protected all the way....


All of you (except for Christian) have a very uninformed view of HIV. Actually, you are informed, just informed by the scare tactics of the AIDS lobby. I completely understand that the way they operate stems from a time when AIDS was the leading cause of death for men aged 18-35 in many major US cities. However, this is NOT 1983. Multiple studies have shown that people with HIV whose load goes down to undetectable have a very very very hard time spreading the virus. Study after study of serodiscordant couples shows this.

One last time....TRUVADA PREVENTS INFECTION IN HIV NEGATIVE PEOPLE.

[Prospero]

So you gonna trust those you fuck bareback to tell YOU the truth, Westheangelino? Trust that they are negative or that they are taking this wonder drug. You are an irresponsible person. And how often do you get tested before injecting girls or guys with your quite possibley infected sperm? End of story.

[Teydyn]

Truvada costs like 30€ / 40$ per day. For the Rest of your life...

That is a bit beyond "basic human right"

[Westheangelino]

So you gonna trust those you fuck bareback to tell YOU the truth, Westheangelino? Trust that they are negative or that they are taking this wonder drug. You are an irresponsible person. And how often do you get tested before injecting girls or guys with your quite possibley infected sperm? End of story.

Um, the whole point is that you DON'T have to trust anyone else. If you're taking it, then you will be protected from contracting HIV. Kind of the whole point. You and others keep bashing me or anyone who would want to take this drug as an irresponsible person....how so? How is wanting to take a drug that has been proven to halt the spread of a deadly disease irresponsible??

[MrBest]

Um, the whole point is that you DON'T have to trust anyone else. If you're taking it, then you will be protected from contracting HIV. Kind of the whole point. You and others keep bashing me or anyone who would want to take this drug as an irresponsible person....how so? How is wanting to take a drug that has been proven to halt the spread of a deadly disease irresponsible??
taking arvs to prevent contraction of hiv is responsible but having sex without protection is not

you should seek therapy

[gaysian71]

Unfortunately, things like vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs to cure diseases are a thing of the past. These days its all about maintenance drugs. They are far more profitable than vaccines or cures. Trillions more. So its either play safe or become be rich so you can afford the drugs. I'm not even close to being poor, but at 40 bucks a day for protection, forget about it.

[Merkurie]

Hurry -- Sign up to be on a $40 a day leash!

[wiltthestilt]

Truvada costs like 30€ / 40$ per day. For the Rest of your life...

That is a bit beyond "basic human right"

That's the major problem. The cost is too simply too high at this point. It could be worth distributing for free to certain at risk groups, but then, how reliably would they take the drug anyway?

It seems, at this point, that the drug would have the most use for people in specific situations, for example, bare back performers in gay, TS, or higher risk hetero porn, or perhaps affluent individuals for whom bare back sex is that much of a priority. It doesn't seem worth the cost for most people when effective cheaper alternatives are available.

[MrBest]

That's the major problem. The cost is too simply too high at this point. It could be worth distributing for free to certain at risk groups, but then, how reliably would they take the drug anyway?

It seems, at this point, that the drug would have the most use for people in specific situations, for example, bare back performers in gay, TS, or higher risk hetero porn, or perhaps affluent individuals for whom bare back sex is that much of a priority. It doesn't seem worth the cost for most people when effective cheaper alternatives are available.
arvs are powerful drugs i doubt someone would be able to maintain a successful career in sex work considering the side affects

[Michelle.]

http://www.truvadapreprems.com/#. Their very web site says to combine Truvada and safer sex practices. Because Truvada and hepatitis have some nasty interactions.

Not to mention the side effects and cost.

[Westheangelino]

Have any of you read anything? Have you googled anything? Clearly not. First of all, the cost is NOT prohibitive. Most insurers are covering this as it is far less expensive for them to give someone truvada to someone at risk than wait for them to become positive and give them even more drugs.

Also, please remember that any drug (think of any ad on TV) has to list all the various side effects, no matter how often they occur or how severe they are. Everyone reacts to drugs differently. I don't even take aspirin because I have bad reactions to it. BUT nearly everything I have read says that the effects are exceedingly mild and well worth it if you are in a high risk group. Every major study also shows that people on truvada do not start barebacking like crazy.

[Jericho]

Tell me, why are you riding this pony so hard.
Do you have stock?



Have any of you read anything? Have you googled anything?

Never mind years at med school, just get on google!
Stay informed by all means, but don't rely on the internet.


Most insurers are covering this as it is far less expensive for them to give someone truvada to someone at risk than wait for them to become positive and give them even more drugs.

No. Most insurers AREN'T covering this.
That's just something you'd like. But, the reality of it is, it's not happening now, and it's never going to happen.


I don't even take aspirin because I have bad reactions to it. BUT nearly everything I have read says that the effects are exceedingly mild and well worth it if you are in a high risk group.

That is a big arsed "But Nearly Everything".
You ready to bet your life on it?

I'm not against you here.
If you want to fuck yourself into the grave, god bless you and good luck with that.
I'm just thinking that if any of our future sexual partners cross paths, I hope I'm the one who got there first! :shrug


http://quotes-lover.com/wp-content/uploads/dr-house-quotes-3.jpg

[londonpirate]

I ve had a chad with a w doctors about it and they all agree that :
- the pill has serious side effects: you will basically spend your days vomiting and in intense body pain
- it damages your organs , even one course of pep can have long lasting damaging effects
- it's not a 100% safe

similarly bleach kills the hiv virus but drinking bleach would kill you and the virus.

[Westheangelino]

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/hiv-prevention-truvada-prep-covered-by-most-insurers-050814

http://myprepexperience.blogspot.com/p/truvada-track.html

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/14/why-arent-gay-men-on-the-pill-ctd-4/

http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/aids/prep-faq-providers.pdf

So, everyone (including the state of Mass.) posting these articles are either full or shit or just misinformed regarding insurance coverage for truvada? Really?

As for some of you making these ridiculous comments about me poisoning your sexual swimming pool and "hoping you get to them first" before I sully your sexual partners with disease: so what? I mean, the condom is 100% safe and effective, and you're always using one, right? You would never bareback ever right? So, you should be totally fine according to your own arguments

[fred41]

Someone mentioned stock...Gilead Sciences is doing very well right now.....just sayin'

[Westheangelino]

^ Usually happens when you invent a wonder drug

[fred41]

^ Usually happens when you invent a wonder drug

Oh yeah...they also have that Hep.C drug...it's expensive and soon will have competition...but it's also doing wonders.
I bought some stock...so keep bumping this thread...lol.

[livepersona]

So you're saying this drug works almost as well as a condom? It's pretty simple.If your'e going to fuck around wear a condom. Never be a beta tester when it comes to medication.

[kaientai]

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/hiv-prevention-truvada-prep-covered-by-most-insurers-050814

http://myprepexperience.blogspot.com/p/truvada-track.html

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/14/why-arent-gay-men-on-the-pill-ctd-4/

http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/aids/prep-faq-providers.pdf

So, everyone (including the state of Mass.) posting these articles are either full or shit or just misinformed regarding insurance coverage for truvada? Really?

As for some of you making these ridiculous comments about me poisoning your sexual swimming pool and "hoping you get to them first" before I sully your sexual partners with disease: so what? I mean, the condom is 100% safe and effective, and you're always using one, right? You would never bareback ever right? So, you should be totally fine according to your own arguments

Manufactured by Gilead Sciences, Truvada PrEP has proven effective at preventing HIV transmission up to 99 percent of the time when used as directed.
from one of your links

[Westheangelino]

^ yep. 99% is more than a condom. I don't understand the statements of "this works as well as a condom.....so use a condom!" Why the fuck wouldn't you use either both or just the pill????

[Westheangelino]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/10/the-battle-over-truvada-and-the-first-treatment-to-prevent-hiv.html

Is the New Yorker a reputable enough source?

"The corresponding figures for PrEP are much better: while adherence is a concern, as it is with condoms, Truvada offers H.I.V. protection that is more effective than any other method short of abstinence. In the N.I.H. study, for example, 5.2 per cent of the placebo group “seroconverted,” or became H.I.V. positive, compared with 2.9 per cent of the Truvada group. That’s a forty-four-per-cent added protection over-all—better than inconsistent condom use. More impressively, patients who maintained a detectable amount of the drug in their system were protected at a rate of ninety-five per cent. (A later statistical analysis estimated that the drug would need to be taken four times a week to offer protection in that range.) Grant said that people in the study who took the drug four to seven days a week “were absolutely protected. We didn’t have anyone seroconvert in our cohort in the United States.”

Taking Truvada to prevent H.I.V. comes with very few risks. In the N.I.H. study, one in two hundred people had to temporarily go off the pill owing to kidney issues, but even those people were able to resume treatment after a couple of weeks. While bone-density loss occasionally occurs in Truvada takers who are already infected with the virus, no significant bone issues have emerged in the PrEP studies. And though about one in ten PrEP takers suffer from nausea at the onset of treatment, it usually dissipates after a couple of weeks. According to the U.N. panel’s Karim, Truvada’s side-effects profile is “terrific,” and Grant said that common daily medications like aspirin and birth control, as well as drugs to control blood pressure and cholesterol, are all arguably more toxic than Truvada."

[RobynBlakeTS]

Your focusing far to much on the fact that the drug prevents HIV replication in a person. Yes that is a good thing and ignoring the current bad side effects a great achievement for science and medicine. The problem is you are now using this drug as a green light for bareback sex, but you are ignoring all the other risks present in that venture. Yes this drug will stop you getting HIV but not using a condom opens you up to the risk of gaining all the other STD's are there. Yes condoms are not 100% but they do help lower the risk of infections and the passing off STD's.

[Westheangelino]

^I'm not ignoring it. I'm not promoting a return to 70's bathhouse culture where you disappear into a cubicle every weekend and fuck your brains out with 50 different people and require penicillin or a shot every week. What I AM saying is that a "use condoms 100's of the time" strategy has FAILED to halt the spread of HIV. There are 50k+ new infections each year in the USA, over half of which are men who have sex with men. Gay men are, even by the most liberal estimates, maybe 5% of the country (and that is really pushing it). So, why would we not adopt a strategy that saves lives? I'm not saying ditch the condom, and I don't think everyone will (I've met several men who lived through both the hedonism of the 70's and the AIDS epidemic of the 80's who have ALWAYS used condoms).

Also, ghonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, herpes, hpv are all easily spread through skin to skin contact and/or saliva. As I said before, I don't know anyone except prostitutes who wrap up for oral sex. You see my point here, yes?

[Teydyn]

The "use condoms 100% of the time" strategy hasnt failed... the people that havent used condoms 100% of the time have...


You see my point here, yes
As always: Do as the professionals do?

[RobynBlakeTS]

Also, ghonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, herpes, hpv are all easily spread through skin to skin contact and/or saliva. As I said before, I don't know anyone except prostitutes who wrap up for oral sex. You see my point here, yes?

True but some of these STD's can be localized on the body, having unprotected oral sex with someone who has anal warts wont lead to you having said warts (if you don't rim) but if their warts are internal and you then go bareback them you going to run the risk of having one nasty looking cock in a months time.

[MrBest]

True but some of these STD's can be localized on the body, having unprotected oral sex with someone who has anal warts wont lead to you having said warts (if you don't rim)
lol do you really believe this if hpv was transmitted sexually theres a good chance the genitals are infected too but hey keep giving bbbj

[RobynBlakeTS]

lol do you really believe this if hpv was transmitted sexually theres a good chance the genitals are infected too but hey keep giving bbbj

Not completely I was just using it as a example but most people who have anal warts do not have it on their penile area. Warts are only contagious via the actual wart. If you have read the thread you would see I am the one battling for safe pleasurable sex other hedonistic irresponsible disease spreading sex. Anyone who has met me knows and can vouch that I am extremely serious when it comes to my health and others health.

[Westheangelino]

^ If you are able to do so then congrats to you personally. 30 yrs and billions of dollars has proven that most people can't. There is a medication out there that saves lives that most people don't even know about!!!

[Prospero]

I hope you can afford the regime of antiretrovirals once you get infected - as you surely will

[Westheangelino]

Not completely I was just using it as a example but most people who have anal warts do not have it on their penile area. Warts are only contagious via the actual wart. If you have read the thread you would see I am the one battling for safe pleasurable sex other hedonistic irresponsible disease spreading sex. Anyone who has met me knows and can vouch that I am extremely serious when it comes to my health and others health.


I hope you can afford the regime of antiretrovirals once you get infected - as you surely will

No, I'm going to get an insurance plan that covers truvada, a drug that has been proven to be 99% percent effective at preventing HIV infection. BOOM

[Prospero]

I would strongly advise anyone visiting these boards to ignore this irresponsible fool

[Westheangelino]

I would strongly advise anyone visiting these boards to ignore this irresponsible fool

Yup. I'm an irresponsible fool who wants to take a pill every day that keeps me from becomming HIV positive and requires you to get screened every four months.. Yeah....sounds about right....:screwy

[Prospero]

Your irresponsbility is your advocacy of barebackng while taking this pill whose efficiency is still in question. Plus you have long been on these boards advocating unsafe sex before you discovered this new drug.

What you do is entirely your own concern. However there are those who visit these boards who will take your advice seriously. If only one of them gets infected as a result of your flawed advice then I would call ou criminally culpable.

So just stop your stupid advocacy.

[RobynBlakeTS]

Yup. I'm an irresponsible fool who wants to take a pill every day that keeps me from becomming HIV positive and requires you to get screened every four months.. Yeah....sounds about right....:screwy

Once again doesn't stop you from getting all the other STD's out there.

[Westheangelino]

^ Never said it did. Neither do condoms. You kind of sound like abstinence only fools who rail against things like the birth control pill.


Criminally culpable? Are you fucking kidding me? People like YOU are criminally culpable in my opinion. It is your moralizing and shaming that is keeping more doctors, the drug company itself, and AIDS advocacy groups from shouting this wonderful news from the rooftops.

[pimpdog]

People obsessed with going condomless are mentally ill imho.

[Westheangelino]

^ How far do you want to go with that? If there was a proven vaccine out there, would you say the same thing? I absolutely understand the difference between getting a shot and having to take a pill every single day that has minor side effects, but if the efficacy is nearly the same (100% vs. 99%), what is the real difference??

[RobynBlakeTS]

^ Never said it did. Neither do condoms. You kind of sound like abstinence only fools who rail against things like the birth control pill.

No you didn't but your just ignoring that part and risk to going bareback and solely focusing on HIV. Condoms are not 100% but they do increase the percentage of protection. Oh no im a big believer in the pill and eugenics and selection, means I would not have to be wasting my time defending those not in the know on here from you , if more people used the pill.


^ How far do you want to go with that? If there was a proven vaccine out there, would you say the same thing? I absolutely understand the difference between getting a shot and having to take a pill every single day that has minor side effects, but if the efficacy is nearly the same (100% vs. 99%), what is the real difference??

Once again you are ignoring facts to fit in your argument, I have given you the list of the side effects from the drugs own website which are anything but minor and to which you had comepete ignorance off despite arguing that you had researched this thoroughly despite never looking on the drugs website.

[Westheangelino]

^ the drugs website is the last place I would look. First of all, drug manufacturers want you to buy their product. So, every psychiatric drug for example is the new cure for all you blues (and clearly that's bullshit). Sometimes it IS a miracle drug, sometimes it's just a band aid. The other side of the coin is that they have to list all potential side effects lest they be liable. Listen to any commercial for any drug on TV from Valtrex to Lipator. The litany of side effects sounds scary for every drug out there. Studies and anecdotal evidence shows that the side effects for this drug are on par with leading high blood pressure meds, e.g.

[Prospero]

Running on close to empty Westheangelino... so take care buddy

[kaientai]

Truvada is also part of one of the possible "cocktails" suscribed to people who have H.I.V, so there are more pills involved , if you want to believe its the miracle get out of HIV for free pill by all means , but you sir are endangering anyone you have unprotected seks with end of fucking story

[Westheangelino]

Truvada is also part of one of the possible "cocktails" suscribed to people who have H.I.V, so there are more pills involved , if you want to believe its the miracle get out of HIV for free pill by all means , but you sir are endangering anyone you have unprotected seks with end of fucking story


Yes, it is also part of the cocktail that already positive people take, and has been proven effective at keeping negative people from becoming positive in the first place. So much so that two months ago the CDC officially endorsed it as a prophylactic against HIV, and now insurers are jumping on board as well.

Your point, sir?

[livepersona]

I think what everyone is trying to say is that you can't take this magic pill and bareback anything you want. It's still risky business.

I have as much faith in this pill as the people who say they have "undetectable HIV". Make so sense. Nothing is 100%.

[Westheangelino]

^ I think the mistrust stems from 30 years of being promised a cure and nothing happening better than taking a strict regimen of expensive drugs for the rest of your life. The pill's efficacy is real. Choose not to believe it if you want, but please don't deny anyone the information and choice of using it as their only means of protection OR a safety net for when other means fail.

[livepersona]

^ I think the mistrust stems from 30 years of being promised a cure and nothing happening better than taking a strict regimen of expensive drugs for the rest of your life. The pill's efficacy is real. Choose not to believe it if you want, but please don't deny anyone the information and choice of using it as their only means of protection OR a safety net for when other means fail.

No denying here. Personally I don't think we'll know the real results unti about 10 years from now. That's when the real data will be available.

[Westheangelino]

http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20140630/hiv-prevention-drug-truvada-might-lower-genital-herpes-risk-too

^Well, well. Looks like this ALSO helps reduce herpes!!!!!

[livepersona]

^^^^
Nice

[MrBest]

http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20140630/hiv-prevention-drug-truvada-might-lower-genital-herpes-risk-too

^Well, well. Looks like this ALSO helps reduce herpes!!!!!
But effect isn't strong enough to make it a stand-alone preventive treatment for herpes, expert says

[Prospero]

I think our Californian jerk must have shares in this "wonder drug"

[Jericho]

I've had a bit of a turn around on my thinking on this, (don't get me wrong, i still think he's a cock). But, that's his right.

Lets face it, there's only a thin membrane between our viewpoints. And, as much as we castigate him, people who don't play in the 'war zone' could say the same of us.

Fuck...I had a point to make here, but I've forgotten it.
Goddamn you, red wine and Dr Krippling! :hide-1:

[fred41]

I've had a bit of a turn around on my thinking on this, (don't get me wrong, i still think he's a cock). But, that's his right.

Lets face it, there's only a thin membrane between our viewpoints. And, as much as we castigate him, people who don't play in the 'war zone' could say the same of us.

Fuck...I had a point to make here, but I've forgotten it.
Goddamn you, red wine and Dr Krippling! :hide-1:

I get your point...

Since anal sex is the most dangerous when it comes to HIV...there would be folks that say "You should avoid it altogether...just stick to pussy"..Then there are people that say some of us are insane for even seeing so many escorts...hell, I know folks that are so afraid of getting a bug they practically avoid sex altogether.

Look, what we do in our private lives...as long as it's consensual, is ultimately a personal decision...and for the sake of honesty, I will admit I've done some stuff that would be considered dangerous in various degrees to different people...but that's my business and I don't ever really condone it...and I will never preach it. If I choose to be stupid, I choose to be stupid...I'm not gonna tell everybody to be stupid...or shout out how great it is to be stupid..

...but I'm glad Wes created this thread. It gave some necessary attention to a good drug that many people didn't know was out there.

[Westheangelino]

^ And for the record, I'm not advocating (nor have I advocated in this thread) any BEHAVIOR other than taking a look at reality and take on some responsibility by arming yourself with this drug to halt the continued spread of HIV. The fact that half of all men who have sex with men (and guess what, my TS loving brethren...as far as the CDC is concerned that includes YOU) will be HIV positive by the time they are 50. Preaching condoms alone is just as stupid as someone preaching abstinence only in order to stem the rates of teen pregnancy. There are new articles every single day (please use Google News and see) proclaiming the benefits of this drug. Please don't let your moralizing preclude everyone from hearing all of their options to protect themselves against HIV/AIDS.

[Prospero]

And it is also very important NOT TO BAREBACK

[Westheangelino]

But if you want to, please consider truvada as another option

[sukumvit boy]

Just bear in mind that all drugs , if used long term , have undesirable and possibly dangerous side effects. One can't be huffing poppers and taking Truvada and expect it not to effect one's health. Just saying.
The most common side effects with Truvada are elevated blood Lactate and liver damage . So you need to see your doctor at least once a year so that he can monitor your blood chemistry / liver enzymes with a blood test. And be honest with him so that he can know your concerns.
As for poppers , at the very least , they make one smell awful for weeks !
Here's a good thumb nail information sheet on Truvada.
http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/drugs/406/emtricitabine---tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate/0/patient

[Westheangelino]

^ Never had a problem smelling bad via poppers.

But, yes, excess in all things leads to bad consequences. That being said, let's have some common sense and use all weapons at our disposal against the scourge of AIDS.

[Prospero]

ALL of them Sir... including condoms.
Oh and using poppers is also stupid.

[Westheangelino]

^ a LOT people enjoy poppers. I think cockrings are stupid. I think marijuana is stupid. A lot of people enjoy those too. Different strokes, different folks. None of which has anything to do do with Truvada FYI.

[Prospero]

Yeah and some folks like playing Russian roulette - with guns or with their sexual health.

But then you are an advocate for all kinds of of dumbness West, so I thought i'd throw that in. Carry on your crusade though....and I truly hope you stay well.

[Westheangelino]

^ I just don't understand that sentiment. I'm advocating people taking a drug that has been shown to reduce the risk of transmitting HIV by more than 95% (and that isn't even using the benchmark of perfect use and compliance). To me the attitude of not shouting this news from the rooftops is so much more deadly and a disservice to humanity.

[Prospero]

That's cool Wes... but its your advocacy of bareback that continues to bug me for its foolishness

[Westheangelino]

^ I see your point. But trust me: my personal feelings on the issue have nothing to do with the fact that half of all men who have sex with men will be HIV positive by the time they are 50. Truvada can help make that statistic a non reality!!!

[Prospero]

as an add on to condoms I agree... but not as a substitute

[fred41]

Why are poppers stupid when used with restraint?

[Westheangelino]

^ They aren't anymore stupid than booze or a joint.

[SuzySnappz]

I've had a bit of a turn around on my thinking on this, (don't get me wrong, i still think he's a cock). But, that's his right.

Lets face it, there's only a thin membrane between our viewpoints. And, as much as we castigate him, people who don't play in the 'war zone' could say the same of us. ...

I agree. Some caution is warranted, but... At this point it seems like it is a real additional prevention option for a lot of people.

I think cost is really the biggest issue preventing widespread adoption right now. $14k a year is a lot. I'm just wondering if more people buying it will enable the cost to go down...

[datguy69]

^ How is this NOT doing that??? Half of all men who have sex with men will become HIV positive by the time they are fifty if current rates continue. We have plateaued in our efforts to combat this endemic disease through condoms. Let's live in reality. I'm not saying that we should go back to the utter hedonism of the 70's (yet), but the reality is that people WILL be careless and not use a condom every time. So, why not have this extra safety net?

Because, if people are careless to not use a condom, what make you think they'll use this. Just be smart and stay safe. And if your partner doesn't like condoms, then you should rethink your partners.

[Westheangelino]

^ Read any of the articles I've posted, and cost really isn't an issue. Just this week, Andrew Cuomo of NY came out preaching the Truvada gospel. Medicaid is covering this as are most private health insurers (benefits them as it's far cheaper than providing meds after someone is already POZ).

[Westheangelino]

Because, if people are careless to not use a condom, what make you think they'll use this. Just be smart and stay safe. And if your partner doesn't like condoms, then you should rethink your partners.

1. Condoms suck
2. Condoms are not sexy
3. Condoms do not feel good
4. Condoms are NOT as effective as properly taken Truvada
5. Condom usage campaigns have failed to halt the spread of HIV among men who have sex with men


Would you use the same argument against the birth control pill?

[Chaos]

Ok. Here's the thing.

What if there were a pill that let you blow the legal limit in a breathalyzer but still be shitface drunk? Would you be applauding that? NO. Because you KNOW drunk driving accidents (and other alcohol related crimes) would skyrocket right?

Well, JUST taking this pill as your excuse to bareback freely,is pretty much the same thing.

You take this pill and think you can just avoid condoms permanently....which opens you up to OTHER diseases.

[TSMichelleAustin]

FYI There has been a cure for years, since the epidemic, they not going to release it. Yes we are not in the 80s anymore, where alone 40,000+ people died in SF from AIDS. But I wouldnt want to take this drug in order to have bareback sex, or what not. I have been sexually active (anal sex) since I was real young. In my 34 years of life, I have had scares but for most part have been safe. I also was in a relationship with an HIV+ person for 2 years, and I am still negative. I rather take safe sex over a pill. Sorry, I hate taking my hormones, how the fuck I wanna take a magic pill so I can have bareback sex.

[Westheangelino]

Ok. Here's the thing.

What if there were a pill that let you blow the legal limit in a breathalyzer but still be shitface drunk? Would you be applauding that? NO. Because you KNOW drunk driving accidents (and other alcohol related crimes) would skyrocket right?

Well, JUST taking this pill as your excuse to bareback freely,is pretty much the same thing.

You take this pill and think you can just avoid condoms permanently....which opens you up to OTHER diseases.


That is the weakest analogy I have yet heard. If you took a pill that let you blow the legal limit, that would mean that it made you NOT DRUNK, since the breathalizer analyzes your blood alcohol level. So, it would eliminate your impairment. Basically, you just made an affirmative argument for what I'm saying. YES I would take a drug that made me sober while I was driving home after a night of heavy drinking. YES I would take a drug that eliminated the risk of me contracting HIV after a night of bareback sex. WHAT IS YOUR POINT???????

As for other diseases, they are all curable and (please reference the latest article I posted), this drug also reduces the risk of genital herpes.

[Jericho]

1. Condoms suck
2. Condoms are not sexy
3. Condoms do not feel good
4. Condoms are NOT as effective as properly taken Truvada
5. Condom usage campaigns have failed to halt the spread of HIV among men who have sex with men



Being a bit disingenuous there.....

1. In your opinion.
2. In your opinion.
3. In your opinion.
4. That's opening a whole other can of worms.
5. Condom usage campaigns have failed to halt the spread of HIV among men who have sex


:shrug

[Westheangelino]

^ Clearly if those were just my opinions, then we wouldn't have the current state of affairs.

And why the alternation of number 5? Over half of all new HIV infections in this country are among men who have sex with men. This is the group that needs the help and all resources available to them.

[Prospero]

^ Clearly if those were just my opinions, then we wouldn't have the current state of affairs.

And why the alternation of number 5? Over half of all new HIV infections in this country are among men who have sex with men. This is the group that needs the help and all resources available to them.

yep... adding Truvada, not using it instead of Condoms.

[LilyRox]

All of which were curable with a shot or a pill. I just don't see what the point is of judging people who lived and died 30 years ago. It has no relevance to what is in front of us right now

lol WHAT?!?! As a species we are suppose to learn from the mistakes we made in the past in order to grow.

[Jericho]

^ Clearly if those were just my opinions, then we wouldn't have the current state of affairs.

And why the alternation of number 5? Over half of all new HIV infections in this country are among men who have sex with men. This is the group that needs the help and all resources available to them.

Implying that nearly half of all new infections in this (actually 'your') country are among men who have sex with women.
What makes your group special? :shrug

[Chaos]

You knew exactly what I meant by my statement. Jackass.

[Westheangelino]

Implying that nearly half of all new infections in this (actually 'your') country are among men who have sex with women.
What makes your group special? :shrug


That's simply a false statement.

[Westheangelino]

You knew exactly what I meant by my statement. Jackass.


I understood the point you were trying to make. Your point just happened to be completely illogical.

At best the argument you were trying to make sounds like the people who were freaking out about weed being legalized in Colorado.

[Westheangelino]

http://nyti.ms/1xZPmJN

BUMP

[Westheangelino]

http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/vakL8Lqdu3ov62O4b3puRJ/Truvada-medicine-not-a-moral-statement.html

[Jericho]

That's simply a false statement.

Please, explain how that's a false statement.

Do the math! :shrug

[Westheangelino]

Please, explain how that's a false statement.

Do the math! :shrug

Let me just make sure that I understand what you were trying to say: you're saying that the other half of new HIV cases are men who have sex with women? Less than one percent of all reported HIV cases are self reported as "men who ONLY have sex with women". It is virtually unheard of in this country for a woman to infect a man with HIV. Throw all the tomatoes you want, but this is a cold, hard fact.

HIV is a GAY disease in this country. This is the largest group affected and the only group where we have not made strides to reduce infection rates.

Just a quick question: do all of the detractors of truvada also agree that heroin addicts should not be provided with free, clean syringes? I mean, just DON'T use heroin and you won't get HIV. All well and good, but in the parts of this country where clean needle programs are in place, HIV infections have been significantly reduced among another group disproportionately affected by the scourge of HIV.

[Jericho]

Yeah, you keep chucking up those strawman arguments, that'' convince us! :shrug

[Prospero]

Let's get this straight wes. You advocate bareback sex proving you are taking truvada... Unlike your earlier enthusiastic advocacy of bareback before the advent of truvada?

[Westheangelino]

^ There is a difference between proclaiming a personal preference and "advocacy". I AM an advocate of people taking truvada because it is an extremely effective tool against HIV. What one does after that is their choice and business.

[Jericho]

Let me just make sure that I understand what you were trying to say: you're saying that the other half of new HIV cases are men who have sex with women? Less than one percent of all reported HIV cases are self reported as"men who ONLY have sex with women". .


That is my whole point
Men who have sex, not men who have sex, with whomever.

[Westheangelino]

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/09/23/hiv-remains-a-gay-disease/

You're missing the point. Please read this article. Dan Savage has also come out saying the same thing.

Men who have sex with men are 44 to 86 times more likely to contract HIV in the USA. That means gay men, bisexual men, and TS AND THEIR ADMIRERS!!! Believe what you want, but the AIDS industry have done a great job making people think that this disease doesn't discriminate. It does.

A good read here to open your eyes:
http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

[Jericho]

If i put it in CAPITAL LETTERS does it have more veracity?

[Westheangelino]

^Nope. Just wanted to make sure it stood out since continually in this thread it appears that respondents are simply spouting off what comes to mind instead of actually reading what I'm posting.

[Jericho]

reading what I'm posting.

Have you ever for one nanosecond considered that what you're posting is shite?



I don't give a shit, stock's up 3%

[Westheangelino]

So, I can see how someone could say what I, myself, is saying is shite. After all, I am some jerk off on a message board just like all of you. But, are you also saying that new recommendations from the CDC, the WHO, the State of New York, the state of Michigan, etc. are also shite. If so, please elaborate.

[LilyRox]

So, I can see how someone could say what I, myself, is saying is shite. After all, I am some jerk off on a message board just like all of you. But, are you also saying that new recommendations from the CDC, the WHO, the State of New York, the state of Michigan, etc. are also shite. If so, please elaborate.


The thing I don't like about the product is that on the Truvada website one of their main target audience are people with partners they know have HIV. This comes off as extremely shady to me that they would even suggest doing this when encouraging people to have "safe sex".

Truvada has been proven to not be 100% effective. I've seen studies that range from 75%-90% effectiveness from different sources. Those are terrible percentages when you're talking about someones life. The fact that they would even try to sell this to people who have partners with HIV is only encouraging them to have sex. Ultimately sooner or later they will get HIV too. So to be completely honest it all comes down to the money for them.

Truvada also does not destroy the virus. It only "makes it harder" for the virus to multiply, the rest is up to your body.

As said multiple times before this post it is also very hard on your liver. The fact that they won't issue this to you if you had any liver problems in the past or are taking any medicine that's harmful to your liver means it can't be good for you.

One of the main things I really don't like about this drug is that a lot of people think it's a safe sex pill.

1. It doesn't protect you from HIV (it really doesn't at all. It slows down the multiplying of HIV and your immune system does the rest if you're lucky).

2. There are dozens of other sex diseases.

[Westheangelino]

The thing I don't like about the product is that on the Truvada website one of their main target audience are people with partners they know have HIV. This comes off as extremely shady to me that they would even suggest doing this when encouraging people to have "safe sex".

Truvada has been proven to not be 100% effective. I've seen studies that range from 75%-90% effectiveness from different sources. Those are terrible percentages when you're talking about someones life. The fact that they would even try to sell this to people who have partners with HIV is only encouraging them to have sex. Ultimately sooner or later they will get HIV too. So to be completely honest it all comes down to the money for them.

Truvada also does not destroy the virus. It only "makes it harder" for the virus to multiply, the rest is up to your body.

As said multiple times before this post it is also very hard on your liver. The fact that they won't issue this to you if you had any liver problems in the past or are taking any medicine that's harmful to your liver means it can't be good for you.

One of the main things I really don't like about this drug is that a lot of people think it's a safe sex pill.

1. It doesn't protect you from HIV (it really doesn't at all. It slows down the multiplying of HIV and your immune system does the rest if you're lucky).

2. There are dozens of other sex diseases.


OMG. I hate to use that acronym, but what you're saying is complete BS.

If taken every. single. day, Truvada is 99% effective. MORE effective than a condom. Do you think that a someone who is negative and in an LTR with someone POZ is going to forget to take their pill or be so careless? What do you suggest for that POZ person? Just use ONLY a less effective means of not infecting their partner or just be celibate forever?

Truvada absolutely DOES protect you from HIV. Period. It is difficult to contract HIV as it is, usually requiring multiple exposures. The drug works because it keeps HIV from gaining a foothold in your body, and it gets flushed out along with the other myriad pathogens our body comes across every single day. How do you think vaccines work? Polio, measles, etc. are always present. If you dont believe me look at the rise of these "dead" diseases in communities that are on the anti-vaccine bandwagon. It's ok to disagree with people who want to bareback only and not use condoms. I get it. It is NOT ok to just spout things that are NOT true.

Yes, there are dozens of other STD's. NONE OF THOSE CAN KILL YOU. And clearly you haven't read the articles I've posted about how new studies show that truvada reduces risk to HPV and Herpes.

[TSMichelleAustin]

Ill say it again, this is stupid as fuck! I had a partner who was HIV+ for two years, we had a great sex life, just with condoms. I am to this day still negative. So condoms are more effective then the BS u keep spewing on here.

[MrBest]

OMG. I hate to use that acronym, but what you're saying is complete BS.

If taken every. single. day, Truvada is 99% effective. MORE effective than a condom. how can hiv penetrate latex?

[Westheangelino]

Ill say it again, this is stupid as fuck! I had a partner who was HIV+ for two years, we had a great sex life, just with condoms. I am to this day still negative. So condoms are more effective then the BS u keep spewing on here.

I can't speak to your sex life. I can only speak to statistics. You could have taken truvada daily and also been negative today. What is your point?

[Subbottom]

The long term effects are worse for healthy individuals from clinical research. Obama care is a solution??? It is each of of our own responsibilities to prevent this from growing out of proportion, and being the next generations responsibility.

[Westheangelino]

The long term effects are worse for healthy individuals from clinical research. Obama care is a solution??? It is each of of our own responsibilities to prevent this from growing out of proportion, and being the next generations responsibility.


So, we should try a condoms only strategy that has plateaued and let people continue to become infected? That makes no sense. How quickly would this have been adopted in the 80's or 90's? Think about it.

[Westheangelino]

http://nymag.com/news/features/truvada-hiv-2014-7/

[bluesoul]

westheangelino: have you considered contacting truvada's marketing team? you'd make a great spokesman for them.

in fact, you could use your avatar and photoshop to make it look like you're holding a blue pill, then at the bottom you can write "if you're going to take one pill this year, make it this one... it will save your life"

i'd also include your signature at the title of "former heavy popper user"

[Teydyn]

Throwing other peoples money at it is always a good solution...

[Westheangelino]

^ former???

[Westheangelino]

Throwing other peoples money at it is always a good solution...

What does that even mean?

[bluesoul]

^ former???

a matter of priority. truvada won't want you being a spokesman for two products

[MrBest]

So, we should try a condoms only strategy that has plateaued and let people continue to become infected? That makes no sense. the advent of ARVs probably increased infections since people think its like taking a multivitamin but what makes less sense is your crusade for barebacking

[Westheangelino]

the advent of ARVs probably increased infections since people think its like taking a multivitamin but what makes less sense is your crusade for barebacking


Now you're just spouting bullshit. While I won't argue that HIV not being a death sentence has increased people's risky behavior, you do realize that someone sticking to their meds makes them much less contagious to the point of not being contagious at all?

[MrBest]

to the point of not being contagious at all?
post your source

[Westheangelino]

http://www.aidsmap.com/Swiss-experts-say-individuals-with-undetectable-viral-load-and-no-STI-cannot-transmit-HIV-during-sex/page/1429357/

http://www.aidsmap.com/No-one-with-an-undetectable-viral-load-gay-or-heterosexual-transmits-HIV-in-first-two-years-of-PARTNER-study/page/2832748/

http://www.thebodypro.com/content/70369/undetectable-viral-load-essentially-eliminates-hiv.html

[Prospero]

Interesting. But I think lorry kramer's point is well made.

"The idea of prep can be especially fraught for older gay men, particularly HIV-positive ones. Larry Kramer, now 79, in poor health and HIV-positive since the 1980s, has been the most prominent voice projecting contempt and bafflement. In a May New York Times article about the HBO version of his 1985 play The Normal Heart, he was quoted as saying, “Anybody who voluntarily takes an antiviral every day has got to have rocks in their heads. There’s something to me cowardly about taking Truvada instead of using a condom. You’re taking a drug that is poison to you, and it has lessened your energy to fight, to get involved, to do anything.”

[Westheangelino]

Interesting. But I think lorry kramer's point is well made.

"The idea of prep can be especially fraught for older gay men, particularly HIV-positive ones. Larry Kramer, now 79, in poor health and HIV-positive since the 1980s, has been the most prominent voice projecting contempt and bafflement. In a May New York Times article about the HBO version of his 1985 play The Normal Heart, he was quoted as saying, “Anybody who voluntarily takes an antiviral every day has got to have rocks in their heads. There’s something to me cowardly about taking Truvada instead of using a condom. You’re taking a drug that is poison to you, and it has lessened your energy to fight, to get involved, to do anything.”


I'm a huge Larry Kramer fan in many ways. But, quite frankly, I don't get what his point is here. Is it just to be pissed? To me, anyone who is at high risk who doesn't take this is the one with rocks in their heads. If this drug was introduced in 1987, what would Mr. Kramer have said then? Fuck that and use a condom? I have my doubts.

The fact is, the battle weary veterans of Kramer's time are highly skeptical of anything that might make their pioneering safe sex efforts obsolete. Rightly so. These are people who saw their friends dropping like flies as the US Government announced that they had found HIV (the virus that was before the unknown cause of AIDS) and in the same press conference said that a cure would be found by the end of the decade (actually I think they even said within 3 yrs, but I would have to check). So, I completely understand the doubt. However, what I cannot ignore or forgive is the outright bending or ignoring of facts. This drug is effective. Larry Kramer would have you believe that it is a form of control and not liberation.

Also, let me point out that Larry Kramer would certainly be in favor of a vaccine. That has been the holy grail sought ever since HIV was revealed as the source of AIDS. Vaccines are between 96 and 100 percent effective, often with side effects. Truvada has been proven 99% effective if taken daily with minimal side effects. You see my point here? And as you're about to say that men won't be able to stick to taking a daily pill to ward off death (an asinine argument if I ever heard one), they have already developed a shot version of it that lasts several months shown to be effective in apes. So, it is only a matter of time before long term shots can replace the pill.

Here is another great article, which is my source for the long term shot treatment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/opinion/sunday/ready-for-hivs-sexual-revolution.html?_r=0

[GroobySteven]

Westtheangelo.
This is a genuine question and not a dig.

If you were given the choice to take a vaccine which needed to be a pill taken daily, which would allow you to have unprotected sex, with as many people as you wish and never catch an STD - but the trade off was that it would end your life earlier.
What would the trade be?
5 yrs or less?
10 yrs?
20 yrs?

(let's assume you'd be living an average lifespan and normal healthy life)

[Westheangelino]

I figure my generation (current 20 to 35 yr olds) will live to at least 80. So, I think 10 years would be fair.

PLEASE NOTE: there is no evidence to suggest that Truvada will shorten your lifespan.

[GroobySteven]

I figure my generation (current 20 to 35 yr olds) will live to at least 80. So, I think 10 years would be fair.

PLEASE NOTE: there is no evidence to suggest that Truvada will shorten your lifespan.


Thanks.
No evidence it won't either :-)

It would be interesting to ask again at 70 ...

[Westheangelino]

Thanks.
No evidence it won't either :-)

It would be interesting to ask again at 70 ...

Actually, a mountain of evidence that it won't shorten your life span. You know what does though? Being HIV positive. You know what prevents that? A little blue miracle pill called Truvada. Take a screenshot of this thread. Let's see where the discussion is in 2020.

[GroobySteven]

Actually, a mountain of evidence that it won't shorten your life span. You know what does though? Being HIV positive. You know what prevents that? A little blue miracle pill called Truvada. Take a screenshot of this thread. Let's see where the discussion is in 2020.

I haven't read the scientific evidence on it, and I've no interest in doing so. Something I would assume though, that it hasn't had 10-20 yr trials. I'm not wanting to get into an argument with you, just wondering what your trade-off would have been.

[Westheangelino]

Thanks.
No evidence it won't either :-)

It would be interesting to ask again at 70 ...


I haven't read the scientific evidence on it, and I've no interest in doing so. Something I would assume though, that it hasn't had 10-20 yr trials. I'm not wanting to get into an argument with you, just wondering what your trade-off would have been.


I love a good hypothetical, but people are going to die because of the opinions of people who want to "wait and see" or worse yet, plant the seed in people's brains that this drug is somehow harmful or ineffective.

[GroobySteven]

I love a good hypothetical, but people are going to die because of the opinions of people who want to "wait and see" or worse yet, plant the seed in people's brains that this drug is somehow harmful or ineffective.

Or people will die because they're take this drug not knowing the future side-effects.

Thalidomide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide)
Rofecoxib - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib)

This is why people aren't taking you seriously, you're EVANGELISTIC about this drug. I'm not saying it's bad - but history shows that taking any drug daily over a long period of time MAY have future repercussions.

It's a personal choice ... I choose to drink probably a bit more than I should and smoke cigars knowing that there is potential of what they can do to my health, down the line. I also choose to eat as little processed food, dairy and no fast food if at all possible, while taking good meats and lots of fruit veg. as based on the evidence these are better. That's my personal choice on how to live my life and I'm prepared to accept that balance.

Your personal choice may be to take a drug which allows you to get poked in the arse with as many cocks as humanely possible while not having to worry about HIV. You simply don't know the downside to that drug yet - but you need to be realistic that it could be there - and that's your choice.

[Westheangelino]

^ People have been taking this drug in megadoses for 12 years now! The dose needed for HIV prevention is much much lower. I will agree with you completely that I am evangelistic. I don't want one more person to die from HIV simply because they didn't know this existed or thought it wouldn't work. Please, understand that I'm speaking out in a world where there AIDS Healthcare Foundation (with it's nearly billion dollar a year operating budget) tried to stop the CDC from endorsing this drug for HIV prevention.

[tao1kiku]

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but here goes...

So if one has had BB sex with someone who is HIV Pos, the virus does get into the body and stays there. Taking Truvada will suppress the virus from activating /spreading but it still needs to be taken every day?

Is this correct?

[Westheangelino]

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but here goes...

So if one has had BB sex with someone who is HIV Pos, the virus does get into the body and stays there. Taking Truvada will suppress the virus from activating /spreading but it still needs to be taken every day?

Is this correct?

Google and ye shall find.

But short answer: HIV enters your body but cannot attach to your cells and replicate. Thus is never gains a foothold and is flushed out with all the other viruses and bacteria we are exposed to on the daily. It does not lie dormant waiting for you to skip a pill as someone else has suggested. Please also keep in mind that if you've gone to the trouble to take Truvada, I'm pretty sure your POZ partner is informed enough to be on HIV medication, which includes Truvada to suppress already present HIV. These medications, in most cases, lower their viral load (the amount of HIV present in their body) to undetectable or near undetectable amounts, which means they are relatively non infectious.

[Westheangelino]

^ Sorry, thought you meant with the same person every day over time. Which is usually how people get HIV, not through one random hookup.

[christianxxx]

i am not sure that's accurate. at least in the porn world, all of the pos cases have been single exposures through receiving anal creampies.

[Westheangelino]

i am not sure that's accurate. at least in the porn world, all of the pos cases have been single exposures through receiving anal creampies.


Totally different discussion, but I've always been curious. How many cases is that? Is that ever really verifiable? Can we be certain that it wasn't off set behavior?

Christian, would you be in favor of studios requiring a Truvada scrip for all their performers while still maintaining the rigorous testing regimen?

[Westheangelino]

^ And to be clear, I wasn't saying that single exposure HIV never happens, but statistically speaking it's far less common than taking multiple exposures in short windows of time whether that be with the same partner or a multitude of partners. We have just been conditioned to believe that that one slip up most people have had is the path to disaster.

[Prospero]

Infection does not require multiple exposures. It happens once. Multiple exposure merely increases the chance of contracting HIV.

[christianxxx]

much like Steven, i would need to look at the long term effects first, but I am generally in favor of Truvada yes.

as for the pos HIV in porn, since 2000 -

Marc Wallice contracted it from an unknown source but most likey an infected drug needle. He gave it to 8 or 9 girls who all contracted it from him during anal creampie gangbangs and scenes (including Tricia Devereaux).

John Stagliano contracted it in Brazil and by his own admission he got a violent anal creampie from a crossdressing streetwalker. (he is now married to Tricia and they have 2 non HIV children).

Darren James contracted it in Brazil as well through unknown origins. He also gave it to 5 different females during anal creampie gangbangs

Since then there have been 0 infections on set...but:

Cameron Reed showed up positive in 2010 and he contracted it privately as a gay escort and bottom (it should be noted his girlfriend at the time worked a lot in the biz and caused a large number of male performers to be quarantined)

last year Cameron Bay and her boyfriend Rod Daily also came up HIV positive through unknown origins although both are admitted drug addicts and Rod is a known gay escort.

Additionally, their close friend Sofia Delgado also tested positive after she was quarantined, but she never did any porn scenes. How she contracted it is speculation but it's believed to be from contact with Cameron Bay & Rod Daily.

Last November TJ Cummings tested positive for HIV. Although being a straight porn performer, he admitted to seeing men & TS privately and often bottoming.

That is the entirety of the straight porn HIV positive list from 2000 to today.

[Westheangelino]

^ When was the NAAT test introduced as a standard as opposed to the traditional elisa, blot, etc. that required 30 days at least to pick up antibodies?

[christianxxx]

i know in 2002 we were already using pcr-dna

[dreamon]

how about abstaining from risky behaviors? and being smart with your sexual health?

[TSMichelleAustin]

I can't speak to your sex life. I can only speak to statistics. You could have taken truvada daily and also been negative today. What is your point?

My point is, over and over u have said condoms dont prevent safety in sex. And I am proven fact it has and does. Why would I want to take a pill for rest of my life so I can bareback god knows who? I am happy being negative and I am happy with my sex life with condoms. It has worked for me in my sex life. So my point is, u keep ranting condoms dont work, and I said it does. Because if didnt, id be positive now. Condoms saved my life, not some pill.

[Westheangelino]

how about abstaining from risky behaviors? and being smart with your sexual health?

So, taking a pill that when taken correctly reduces your risk of contracting HIV by 99% isn't a smart thing to do regarding one's sexual health?

[Westheangelino]

My point is, over and over u have said condoms dont prevent safety in sex. And I am proven fact it has and does. Why would I want to take a pill for rest of my life so I can bareback god knows who? I am happy being negative and I am happy with my sex life with condoms. It has worked for me in my sex life. So my point is, u keep ranting condoms dont work, and I said it does. Because if didnt, id be positive now. Condoms saved my life, not some pill.

That's fantastic, and I'm really glad that you found something that worked for you. The reality is though, that you're an outlier on the statistical scale. If someone and their partner are able to adhere to condom usage 100% of the time, and are ok with the risk of one breaking, then go for it! But this is another option in the war on HIV, which clearly needs all the weapons it can get based on statistics in the real world.

[Prospero]

Wes... why don't you just leave the topc here. You've been banging on about it for weeks. Peple are either persuaded or not.

[Prospero]

Wes --- getting tiresome buddy. Why not just rest your case

[Prospero]

Merged two threads

[Westheangelino]

^ Because people are going to die unless they know their options. This might be acceptable to you, but it is unimaginable to me.

Plus, new news comes out every day about this wonder drug. So, I won't stop shouting this from the rooftops.

[Westheangelino]

I also love how we can have endless versions of the following: Who is this Girl? Am I Gay????!!!! First Time Bottom. Remember GG's? Etc.... but two threads discussing a lifesaving miracle drug need to be merged into one?

[Prospero]

Yes - because they cover exactly the same topic and they virtually all posted by you, Wes....

[Jericho]

Plus, new news comes out every day about this wonder drug. So, I won't stop shouting this from the rooftops.

So, out of interest, how long have you been taking it?

[Westheangelino]

^ Not on it yet. Trying to find the right insurance plan or the right clinic to get it for free. Admittedly I haven't been trying very hard since I found out about truvada as my sex life hasn't been very anally centered lately, but 'tis the season now.

[broncofan]

^ Because people are going to die unless they know their options. This might be acceptable to you, but it is unimaginable to me.

Plus, new news comes out every day about this wonder drug. So, I won't stop shouting this from the rooftops.
The drug very well may be helpful to people. I hope that if people decide to use it they don't use it as a substitute for other safe practices but instead as an addition to their current regime to make themselves safer. Your interest in this topic doesn't seem to stem from an interest in safety but an interest in having unprotected sex and not feeling guilty about it.

If you had been interested in safety, you would have been talking about the other available safety options before you began advertising Truvada. Instead you were talking about unprotected sex and advertising the benefits and minimizing the risks associated with it. That's why you come across as so disingenuous.

Further, I have to agree with everyone else. A thread pops to the top of the list when it is interesting enough to justify new posts. But your posts are not updates.

[Westheangelino]

^ Actually, my posts are either new news articles revealing new benefits or refuting utter bunk being put out there by others.

Also, sex on truvada IS NOT UNPROTECTED SEX

[Westheangelino]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hiv-pill-truvada-shows-more-promise-to-prevent-infection/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/07/22/truvada_or_prep_is_highly_effective_iprex_ole_stud y_proves.html

^ Two good blurbs on the follow up study to the groundbreaking study that proved Truvada's effectiveness.

[trish]

Suppose you’re having sex once a day, everyday for a year with an partner who has AIDS. What are your chances of making it to the end of the year without contracting AIDS?

The answer depends on the method you use to avoid transmission of the disease. Suppose the method (or combination of methods) you have chosen is 90% effective. What does that mean? If I understand correctly it means that if you expose yourself once you have a 90% chance of not getting infected through that one exposure. Suppose you plan to use that method for a week. Then there’s more than a 52% chance of being infected before the week’s out. (This is because the probability of not getting infected by week’s end is 0.9 to the 7th power, which is approximately 0.48).

Suppose instead your daily method of avoiding transmission is 99% efficient (i.e. the probability of avoiding transmission on one exposure is 0.99). Then the probability of getting infected by year’s end is greater than 0.974. (This is because 0.99 to the 365th power is less than 0.026).

What sort of efficiency do you require to lower that probability from 0.974 to 0.01? You need a method that is 99.997% efficient. (This is because 0.99997 to the 365th power is approximately 0.99).

So suppose everyday you use a method that is 99.997% efficient. So the probability of making it through the year without getting infected is 0.99. The probability of making through a decade approximately 0.9 (a little more precisely 0.896).

The good news is that each time you test negative, you can reset the clock; i.e. if you make it through a year without getting infected, then you have a 99% chance of making it through the next year.

Moral: I haven’t a clue. You provide the moral.

[Westheangelino]

^ Not really how this works, but nice try LOL

[trish]

Then enlighten me. Is not each exposure an independent event?

I realize that the definition of efficiency used in the above post, is probably not the same as the reported efficiencies which are averages of samples of people taken over the period a time they used the method in question. Nevertheless, there is a probability of transmission given a single exposure and the complement of this probability could well be regarded as a measure of efficiency for a given method of transmission prevention. It is that measure that needs to be as high as 99.997% to give a 99% chance of making it through the year.

[broncofan]

I agree with your reasoning Trish. I think you're right though that the transmission rates given are probably averages over a period of time rather than per sex act. But given the efficiency rate per sex act, you will get a much lower rate per annum (or per anum:).

[trish]

Yes. I'm pretty sure when a company advertises 90% efficiency, they couldn't possibly mean per exposure. But it's very difficult to tell from ads, news articles and lay-reports of studies just what those numbers mean. The public should be aware, whatever they mean, they diminish with number of exposures until such time as one is tested and resets the Bayesian clock.

[broncofan]

The public should be aware, whatever they mean, they diminish with number of exposures until such time as one is tested and resets the Bayesian clock.
The fact that this is rarely if ever made completely clear is proof enough that the information tends not to be disseminated responsibly.

[Lovecox]

Anybody know about cost? Anybody?

[broncofan]

http://www.goodrx.com/truvada

[Westheangelino]

If something is 99% effective, one person can be expected to become infected over the course of a year, BUT that doesn't mean they will. Much of this has to do with human factors. I.e., skipping a birth control pill, a truvada pill, an antibiotic, etc. will account for a lot of that one percent.


As for cost, as stated in article after article, most insurers as well as medicaid and medicare are covering the drug.

[trish]

Thank you for the definition (one would assume "expected" means 95% confident but you can correct me if you find out differently). So the probability that out of one hundred people having daily encounters with an AIDS partner(these sorts of criteria should be spelled out in a proper definition) will contract AIDS within one year's time is 0.95. That amounts to one in ten people over a decade.

[Westheangelino]

^ You're presenting a false scenario. One would think that if your partner has HIV, and you're on Truvada, then your partner probably is already on ARV therapy, bringing their risk of infecting you if you were on nothing down to near zero in the first place.

[MrBest]

^ You're presenting a false scenario. One would think that if your partner has HIV, and you're on Truvada, then your partner probably is already on ARV therapy, bringing their risk of infecting you if you were on nothing down to near zero in the first place.
i thought youre promoting bb promiscuity

[Westheangelino]

how about abstaining from risky behaviors? and being smart with your sexual health?


i thought youre promoting bb promiscuity

I'm promoting people taking this drug in order to halt the spread of HIV. What they do after that is their business.

I find it so very interesting that with all these hypotheticals and statistical hand wringing, you're all forgetting the low efficacy of the condom only campaigns.

[trish]

^ You're presenting a false scenario. One would think that if your partner has HIV, and you're on Truvada, then your partner probably is already on ARV therapy, bringing their risk of infecting you if you were on nothing down to near zero in the first place. You're the one who said one transmission out of a possible one hundred in the course of a year. I'm just repeating it to make sure I got it right. So it's not a 95% chance that one person in a hundred acquires the infection in the course of one year? Just trying to understand what 99% efficient means.

[Westheangelino]

Read the latest articles I posted. None of the people taking truvada as directed (every day) became positive. Even taking it four times a week led to 90% efficacy.

Let me put this in the most simplest terms for everyone. For the last thirty years there have been two tools in halting HIV: condoms or abstinence. Condoms, when used correctly (i.e. 100% of the time) are highly effective, upwards of 95%. When used TYPICALLY (meaning sometimes, as is the case in reality for most people) they are barely more effective than going bareback 100% of the time. Hence rates of infection stubbornly remaining at the same rate for a very long time. I don't hear anyone saying abstinence or else. So, here we have a NEW method which is proven to be more effective than perfect condom adherence, and people are decrying the possible abandonment of the old method of prevention. How does this make sense? And if you think that putting on a condom or, let's be honest, making sure your partner is putting one on and keeping it on, is easier than taking a little blue pill every morning then, to borrow the words of Mr. Larry "truvada is the enemy" Kramer: you've got rocks in your head.

[trish]

I’m not disputing the effectiveness of Truvada or arguing either way the people should or shouldn’t avail themselves of it. I just want to know what 90% efficient means. The lay-literature never seems to fill in all the blanks:

The study shows us that we can be ____ confident that if the drug is used by _____ participants whose exposure conditions are _____ and whose dosage is ____ every _____hours, then over ______month’s time ____ to ____ transmissions will have occurred.

Example: If we are 95% confident that 8 to 12 people of a group of 100 will test positive at the end of the year given that all were having daily sex an AIDS positive partner, and given that each person took no more or less than three doses of BrandX preventative a week, then can say with 95% confidence that under these circumstances BrandX is 90% effective.

Note, sample sizes are chosen to obtained the desired level of confidence. Because the sample size is always smaller than the actual population one can never have 100% confidence. Suppose one study suggests with 95% confidence that if BrandX is used 4 times a week (under the specifically described conditions), then there will be no transmissions. What that tells us is that the probability of no transmission over one year’s time (under the described conditions and at a 4 times a week dosage rate) is 0.95. Over a decade that would reduce approximately to a probability of 0.60, therefore giving the user a 40% chance of testing positive by the end of the decade.

Other phrases one finds in the lay-literature like “90 % reduced risk” just add more layers of confusion. How was the prior risk defined? What were the exposure parameters, what prior methods were being utilized to minimize transmission? Etc.

[Westheangelino]

Some of this reminds me of people in my freshman year sexual education class when people started saying things like, "So, if you found a bucket of AIDS blood, cut your hand and shoved it in, what are your chances of getting HIV?" To which my professor replied, "Um, why the fuck would you do that?"

I understand the need to quantify these numbers out of skepticism or what have you, but the only stat I care about is THIS: If I take truvada religiously, I will not become infected with HIV. The stats bear this out. I have as much chance of getting hit by lightening or a city bus. The methods available to me now that I control aren't as effective. Even if I chose to be completely abstinent, I could be drugged, raped, or....have someone cut my hand and shove it into a bucket of AIDS blood. This is about controlling your own destiny.

I understand that it's in pill form now, and some might view that as inconvenient. Well, It's less convenient to be HIV POZ. Also, as I mentioned before, they are already working on long term dosage of Truvada that could be delivered in shot or patch form.

I'll ask all the haters this: if there were a vaccine that was a one time shot, but you had a .01 percent chance of becoming POZ, would you take it? If not then why not?

[trish]

I understand the need to quantify these numbers out of skepticism or what have youYou can't quantify numbers. They're already numbers. The studies have been done. The results have been analyzed. The problem is the results are being reported half-assed.

The trouble with bandying about phrases like “it’s 95% efficient” or “it’s 99% efficient” is that they’re meaningless without having available all the other numbers and conditions are are used to defined them. The danger with such phrases is that 95% efficient can sound wonderful, and on short runs it is. But on a twenty year stretch (which is not rare for domestic partnerships) 95% efficiency could mean a 64% chance of contracting AIDS.

Do you want to avoid testing positive for a year, or for a lifetime?

The same can be said of side-effects. The odds of suffering, say from liver damage, as a side effect of using BrandX may be small in the course of one year’s usage at the recommended dose. But the probability of dangerously damaging your liver over the course of one or two decades may be considerably higher. Again we need to know dosages, number of incidences out of samples of participants and confidence intervals to make any intelligent choices (i.e. to decide to use this method over that method, or a combination of methods and medicines over that combination).

It’s understandable that marketers would want to advertise their product is ninety-some percent efficient without specifying exactly what that means. It’s disappointing that news sources pass along these numbers without explicating their meaning; especially since the technical reports are difficult and sometimes costly to obtain, as well as terse, jargon dense and nearly impossible for laypersons to read.

I do not wish to dissuade anyone from using whatever methods they deem effective for them. What is important is that people not be snowed or wowed by reports of high efficiency without knowing exactly how those numbers apply to their specific circumstances.

[Westheangelino]

^ Everyone who gets a scrip for this has to be counseled by a Dr., has to be tested for HIV AND monitor their kidneys every three months. Trust me, anyone who starts receiving this drug will get the proper facts. The real problem is that most of the people in the communities most affected by HIV in this country (poor black and brown folks) don't even know it exists yet, because it has not made its way into the mainstream consciousness, precisely due to the moralizing of groups like the AHF.

[trish]

I don't want to trust you, I just want an accurate description of what the numbers you quote mean. If you don't know, then why do you find them so convincing?

[Westheangelino]

I'm not asking you to trust me. I'm asking you to trust the CDC, the WHO, the states of New York, Michigan, Washington, and the list keeps growing.

This article should answer your questions:

http://www.aidsmap.com/Overall-PrEP-effectiveness-in-iPrEx-OLE-study-50-but-100-in-those-taking-four-or-more-doses-a-week/page/2892435/

[The Piper]

the WHO


I saw them live in Liverpool last year.
Roger Daltrey still has a great voice.

:banana:

[Tapatio]

Thalidomide was once approved and considered a wonder.

[Westheangelino]

^ And is still used to treat cancer. It's effects on pregnant women ushered in an era where drugs are studied more carefully.

Your point?

[trish]

Were you able to fill in the blanks of post #219 by reading that article. I wasn't. Clearly, I'll not find the information I seek here. I'll leave you to your job of waking up HA's members to the existence of Truvada.

[Westheangelino]

I’m not disputing the effectiveness of Truvada or arguing either way the people should or shouldn’t avail themselves of it. I just want to know what 90% efficient means. The lay-literature never seems to fill in all the blanks:

The study shows us that we can be ____ confident that if the drug is used by _____ participants whose exposure conditions are _____ and whose dosage is ____ every _____hours, then over ______month’s time ____ to ____ transmissions will have occurred.

Example: If we are 95% confident that 8 to 12 people of a group of 100 will test positive at the end of the year given that all were having daily sex an AIDS positive partner, and given that each person took no more or less than three doses of BrandX preventative a week, then can say with 95% confidence that under these circumstances BrandX is 90% effective.

Note, sample sizes are chosen to obtained the desired level of confidence. Because the sample size is always smaller than the actual population one can never have 100% confidence. Suppose one study suggests with 95% confidence that if BrandX is used 4 times a week (under the specifically described conditions), then there will be no transmissions. What that tells us is that the probability of no transmission over one year’s time (under the described conditions and at a 4 times a week dosage rate) is 0.95. Over a decade that would reduce approximately to a probability of 0.60, therefore giving the user a 40% chance of testing positive by the end of the decade.

Other phrases one finds in the lay-literature like “90 % reduced risk” just add more layers of confusion. How was the prior risk defined? What were the exposure parameters, what prior methods were being utilized to minimize transmission? Etc.

Let me try. But I'll note that your use of the term "AIDS positive" person makes me think that you have little to no knowledge of HIV/AIDS, how people become infected, and how it has been treated.

But, I'll humor you: NOT ONE PERSON IN THE STUDY WHO TOOK TRUVADA EVEN FOUR DAYS A WEEK BECAME INFECTED OVER COURSE OF 17 MONTHS. The only people who became infected either never took the medication or stopped taking it several months before infection. Furthermore, the study showed that those who were engaging in more risky behavior practiced better adherence to their recommended drug regimen of a pill per day.

NOTHING is 100% effective. But please keep in mind that THIS is the same drug that keeps HIV from replicating in those already infected, thus bringing their viral load down to the point of "undetecatability", thus making them nearly non infectious. Please extrapolate that to people who are not infected to begin with. The drug works. It has worked for 12 years. This is just another discovered use for it, bourn out by several and increasing studies.

[MrBest]

We have plateaued in our efforts to combat this endemic disease through condoms.
again, how can hiv penetrate latex?

[Westheangelino]

again, how can hiv penetrate latex?


Pretty easily if the condom is broken, slips off, has not been stored properly, is too old, or is slipped off by an unscrupulous partner.

[fred41]

I'll ask all the haters this: if there were a vaccine that was a one time shot, but you had a .01 percent chance of becoming POZ, would you take it? If not then why not?

Not a hater...but I would get that shot.

[MrBest]

Pretty easily if the condom is broken, slips off, has not been stored properly, is too old, or is slipped off by an unscrupulous partner.
but hiv cant penetrate intact latex can it?

[Westheangelino]

but hiv cant penetrate intact latex can it?


It's been shown not to. One in a million? You'l have to ask the CDC, Trojan, Lifestyles, et al about that.

HIV penetrating latex has never been the issue with condoms and HIV. The issues have always been: people don't want to wear them, fucked up power dynamics in relationships, difficulty in properly using them or using them at all when drunk/high/in the moment or whatever. Truvada is superior in all these regards.

[MrBest]

It's been shown not to. One in a million? You'l have to ask the CDC, Trojan, Lifestyles, et al about that.

HIV penetrating latex has never been the issue with condoms and HIV. The issues have always been: people don't want to wear them, fucked up power dynamics in relationships, difficulty in properly using them or using them at all when drunk/high/in the moment or whatever. Truvada is superior in all these regards.
how is truvada going to prevent bacterial infections?

[Westheangelino]

^It isn't. It has been shown to reduce the risk of HPV and Herpes, two things that condoms only protect against if the outbreak is on the covered area, which basically means they are ineffective against those two viruses.

If you're worried about bacterial infection, you're in the wrong discussion. This discussion is about making people aware of a drug that reduces the risk of a deadly virus by 99%.

[Westheangelino]

http://www.edgeboston.com/news/News/164809/ahf's_prep_ad_sparks_controversy

That latest news: the AIDS Health Care Foundation is now participating in the genocide that they were created to stop. Absolutely DISGUSTING.

[dreamon]

I'm gonna go ahead and believe the doctors fighting against this disease than a company trying to make a buck.

[Westheangelino]

^

First off, the company has remained silent on the subject, including no ad campaigns, something unthinkable for something that could be so profitable. Why? Bullshit like this.

What doctors do you speak of? Michael Weinstein is NOT a doctor. What about all the hundreds of doctors that run the WHO and the FDA, which have both recommended that high risk populations start taking this drug ASAP????

[Westheangelino]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/09/10/michael_weinstein_of_the_aids_healthcare_foundatio n_hates_truvada_don_t.html


Weinstein is the devil

[Westheangelino]

http://www.advocate.com/31-days-prep


^Some highly informative stuff

[Tapatio]

Wes, are we protected if others take this, or only if we do?

[Westheangelino]

^ This is an interesting question, and the answer on a purely scientific level is both. On a real life level, I'd say the answer is, "not on your life!" Allow me to elaborate.....


So, given that the pill keeps one from contracting HIV, the short answer is yes. It's a simple equation that if your partner is negative on on PrEP, then they will not become infected, thus you will not become infected. It's not as though someone can be negative, on prep, and carry the virus around like a carrier. Just doesn't work that way.

Now, let's take a trip to the real world. Letting someone fuck you sideways if you aren't on PrEP simply because they SAY they are is maybe even more foolish than people who have barebacked until now because their partner claims to be negative, etc. The great thing about this drug is that the owness is solely on ONE person to control their health. With condoms it's always a two person conversation.

[Tapatio]

any chance of bugs developing resistance?

Antibiotics worked fine until they didn't, and now we have the SuperClap™-

Well, I don't have the SuperClap™. Some folks do, but not me.

Nope.

That's some fucked up shit, though.

SuperClap™.

[Westheangelino]

^ While this is ALWAYS a chance that something can develop drug immunity, this seems unlikely with Truvada. First off, in ten years, it probably will not be the same drug, as Gilead is already working on different formulations and different delivery methods (think once every six month injections). Also, people who are HIV+ have been taking this very drug for over a decade, and it's through them that the researchers figured out that it could be used as prevention as well. So far, there has been no evidence of a patient losing efficacy who is already HIV +.

Also, let's consider the concept of herd immunity, which could be a real thing with something like the HIV virus, which is much less communicable than say Chylmidia or Syphallis. Men who have sex with men make up 2% of the US population, but represent 52% of all persons living with HIV and 63% of new infections.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/01/Gay-Men-are-Only-2-Percent-of-Population-But-52-Percent-of-HIV-Cases

So, just think if even half of us took Truvada. The sharp decrease would be astronomical and nothing short of a miracle.

[Tapatio]

So probably another SuperClap™.

Is this covered under ACA?

[Westheangelino]

^ Um....NO probably not another Superclap. Did you actually read what I wrote?

And, yes, most major insurers are covering this as are state run medicaid agencies. One of the knocks on this drug is that its cost is prohibitive. BUT that is simply not true. Think about it: it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe millions as people live longer) to cover HIV+ people (which now has to be done thanks to Obamacare), but fraction to keep people HIV- through PrEP. THANK YOU OBAMA!!!!!

[Tapatio]

^ Um....NO probably not another SuperClap™!

Fixed that for you. I bet something develops though- I'll watch the real world trials with interest.

I just can't see going pharmaceutical unless I have to for some reason. Like a "life depends on this" kind of reasons.

[Westheangelino]

Fixed that for you. I bet something develops though- I'll watch the real world trials with interest.

I just can't see going pharmaceutical unless I have to for some reason. Like a "life depends on this" kind of reasons.


Ok. So, what are you sexual practices right now? What makes you even curious about this drug? Why do you bet something develops? What makes you think that way? You do understand that real world trials have already taken place right?

[Tapatio]

My interest is actually not in the drug, but in your insistence that we should take a maintenance drug.

It's fascinating. Maybe it's altruism, but it doesn't read that way.