Gay SF Official Makes Unusual HIV Announcement

[natina]

Gay SF Official Makes Unusual HIV Announcement

Scott Wiener may be first public figure to disclose Truvada use

A San Francisco official looks to be the first public figure in the country to "come out of the PrEP closet," as he puts it in a piece for the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-wiener/coming-out-of-the-prep-closet_b_5832370.html). Scott Wiener—who represents a district he calls "ground zero for the HIV epidemic"—says he takes the daily antiviral pill Truvada to lower his risk of contracting HIV. He's urging other gay men to do the same. "A much larger segment of gay men should be taking a close look" at what's known as pre-exposure prophylaxis, Wiener tells the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/upshot/san-francisco-politician-says-hes-on-pill-to-prevent-hiv.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&abt=0002&abg=0). Truvada as PrEP has been very slow to catch on across the country, which Wiener writes sees 50,000 new HIV infections each year. Researchers say PrEP could reduce the risk of HIV infection by up to 99% if taken as prescribed.
The World Health Organization made a similar case (http://www.newser.com/story/190805/who-all-gay-men-should-take-antiretroviral-drugs.html) to Wiener's this summer, but the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/S-F-supervisor-discloses-PrEP-use-in-hopes-of-5763189.php) calls Wiener's announcement "significant because so few people have been willing to talk openly about their use of Truvada." Though the drug's list price is just over $1,000 a month, Wiener says PrEP is covered by most health insurers (he personally pays $15 a month). For the uninsured or those with high-deductible plans, however, the price can be a problem. Wiener's colleague, David Campos, says he will ask the city's health department to develop a strategy that "addresses the educational and affordability issues" by December. "We have to start somewhere," says Campos, who adds that every prevented infection saves $355,000 in treatment costs.


http://www.newser.com/story/196067/gay-sf-official-makes-unusual-hiv-announcement.html

http://eduardodelapaz.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/truvada-afp.jpg

[Westheangelino]

^ hell yeah!!!!!!!

[fred41]

^ hell yeah!!!!!!!


God I wish I had been able to buy more stock at the time...but I was low on cash, so I invested a pittance.
Gilead Sciences is awesome.
Thanks Wes...I only wish you had started your thread earlier.
:cheers:

[lifeisfiction]

The drug is not effective as you think. Here is the breakdown of the study and its scary. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/upshot/is-truvada-the-pill-to-prevent-hiv-99-percent-effective-dont-be-so-sure.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

[Westheangelino]

^ Subsequent follow up studies have come out since that article was written backing up the efficacy when truvada is strictly adhered to.

So awesome to see a public official unashamed of protecting himself!

[Prospero]

Publish a link to those subsequent studies then Wes

[Westheangelino]

^ Not interested in reposting things that were simply ignored or not read in my original thread on Truvada, but you should definitely give that whole thread a read.

[broncofan]

^ Not interested in reposting things that were simply ignored or not read in my original thread on Truvada, but you should definitely give that whole thread a read.
Maybe people are ready to listen. You have to understand the skepticism when one week you say a bareback insertive partner has no risk of getting HIV and then the next that taking Truvada is the responsible thing to do.

[lifeisfiction]

^ Not interested in reposting things that were simply ignored or not read in my original thread on Truvada, but you should definitely give that whole thread a read.

I went and reread the whole thread, sigh. The articles about Truvada where written before the NY Times article. Any article afterward discussed the rates of HIV transmission and the only article that discussed Truvada only stated the PreP will lower your chances and that has been proven over and over. It is effective with other forms of protection such as condoms. So no, you never produced an article stating otherwise the effectiveness of the study. Yes it will lower your chances, but its not as effective or more so it alone is a poor method of protection.

[Westheangelino]

I went and reread the whole thread, sigh. The articles about Truvada where written before the NY Times article. Any article afterward discussed the rates of HIV transmission and the only article that discussed Truvada only stated the PreP will lower your chances and that has been proven over and over. It is effective with other forms of protection such as condoms. So no, you never produced an article stating otherwise the effectiveness of the study. Yes it will lower your chances, but its not as effective or more so it alone is a poor method of protection.


This is what I'm talking about. You actually just said: "alone it is a poor method of protection", which proves to me that you either didn't read or didn't comprehend anything.

This is why I stopped discussing this here. Here is a group at very high risk for HIV (especially my fellow tranny chasers due to the often closeted aspect of it) who don't want to hear about something that can not only save by change their lives.

You can say what you want about me and my personal behavior, but I didn't conduct the studies, do the research or write the articles. As I've stated over and over: you don't need to believe me. Believe the CDC, the WHO, the States of Mass., Michigan, and NY, and now a SF supervisor.


We can END HIV in 25 years. If you want to.....

[Westheangelino]

I went and reread the whole thread, sigh. The articles about Truvada where written before the NY Times article. Any article afterward discussed the rates of HIV transmission and the only article that discussed Truvada only stated the PreP will lower your chances and that has been proven over and over. It is effective with other forms of protection such as condoms. So no, you never produced an article stating otherwise the effectiveness of the study. Yes it will lower your chances, but its not as effective or more so it alone is a poor method of protection.

Yup, as I suspected.... YOU CAN'T FUCKING READ.

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

^ READ THAT ARTICLE. WHEN WAS IT PUBLISHED? WHEN WAS YOUR ARTICLE PUBLISHED?

STOP TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE INTO NOT TAKING SOMETHING THAT WILL SAVE THEIR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!

[lifeisfiction]

This is what I'm talking about. You actually just said: "alone it is a poor method of protection", which proves to me that you either didn't read or didn't comprehend anything.

This is why I stopped discussing this here. Here is a group at very high risk for HIV (especially my fellow tranny chasers due to the often closeted aspect of it) who don't want to hear about something that can not only save by change their lives.

You can say what you want about me and my personal behavior, but I didn't conduct the studies, do the research or write the articles. As I've stated over and over: you don't need to believe me. Believe the CDC, the WHO, the States of Mass., Michigan, and NY, and now a SF supervisor.


We can END HIV in 25 years. If you want to.....

What you argue is that this pill could prevent the transmission of HIV. If you read the studies, you will find that the pill only lowers the risk. To rely solely on the pill is dangerous, because something that lowers the risk does not make it a great preventer of the transmission of HIV.

The big problem is by how much does it lower the risk. Apparently, the studies resulted in less than 50% because of failure to adhere to the drugs dosage requirements. Second, they estimated that it could be in the 90%, but the results are probable estimates. Why, because having the increase dosage in the body would possibly result in lower transmission rate. Something not worth risking your life over.

I do love your passion for pushing drugs that can help. Sadly this PreP is not as effective as advertise. Its not the first time it has happen and its not the last. My fear is that many people will get the wrong idea and believe using Truvada alone will be sufficient. It will only lead into a spike in HIV transmission. A lot of health care individuals recommend the medication be used in conjunction with other means of protection and prevention. Condoms and Truvada can ensure the in case of breakage the chances of transmission are lowered.

Yes, I understand sex with condoms are not as enjoyable and takes away from the moment. I am hoping the Galactic Cap Condom is successful and will provide a more pleasurable experience with lowered HIV transmission rates. The truth is, people are not as diligent about there sexual health as they could be. Many people assume since they have no symptoms they are perfectly fine, and many fail to do testing for many reasons. My concern is people lie and its better to be safe then sorry. Some people never get anything some people do. What you do is for you to decide not me.

[lifeisfiction]

Yup, as I suspected.... YOU CAN'T FUCKING READ.

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

^ READ THAT ARTICLE. WHEN WAS IT PUBLISHED? WHEN WAS YOUR ARTICLE PUBLISHED?

STOP TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE INTO NOT TAKING SOMETHING THAT WILL SAVE THEIR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!

You do know what PreP is? When someone has a high risk exposure, a person can opt for PreP which has a chance of fighting the infection. Remember for HIV to take hold it has to build to a certain of number of the disease. So in the beginning the small dosage of the virus can be defeated by the PreP. So yes I never said not to take the Pill, silly. I

The only change is PreP is taken daily by HIV negative individuals and people who have not experience recent high risk exposure. Remember after 15-20 days after exposure a person can develop HIV. And at that point the virus can be transmitted. Some people show no symptoms at all so just because you look health doesn't mean you are healthy.

In fact Truvada is given to HIV patients with a combination of the other drugs. PreP can help lower the transmission of HIV, does not mean alone is a great preventer. I never said to not take the pill, but to rely on it solely is foolish. Combine it with condoms and it will provide a greater safety net. If you are a bottom and the condom breaks, Truvada would help lower the risk of transmission. The 90% is still hypothetical, because the studies are not sufficient to be conclusive. Even in your own study people used condoms. I just want people to be safe, that's all. I never said not to use it.

Now would you WestAngelino have sex with no protection with a person who said they were using Truvada?

[Westheangelino]

You do know what PreP is? When someone has a high risk exposure, a person can opt for PreP which has a chance of fighting the infection. Remember for HIV to take hold it has to build to a certain of number of the disease. So in the beginning the small dosage of the virus can be defeated by the PreP. So yes I never said not to take the Pill, silly. I

The only change is PreP is taken daily by HIV negative individuals and people who have not experience recent high risk exposure. Remember after 15-20 days after exposure a person can develop HIV. And at that point the virus can be transmitted. Some people show no symptoms at all so just because you look health doesn't mean you are healthy.

In fact Truvada is given to HIV patients with a combination of the other drugs. PreP can help lower the transmission of HIV, does not mean alone is a great preventer. I never said to not take the pill, but to rely on it solely is foolish. Combine it with condoms and it will provide a greater safety net. If you are a bottom and the condom breaks, Truvada would help lower the risk of transmission. The 90% is still hypothetical, because the studies are not sufficient to be conclusive. Even in your own study people used condoms. I just want people to be safe, that's all. I never said not to use it.

Now would you WestAngelino have sex with no protection with a person who said they were using Truvada?

Grab the popcorn, folks. This might take a minute. Let me try to reply point by point. Also, sorry for screaming in caps earlier. But this is life and death, and while you're entitled to your opinion, some of them are simply wrong and misinformed.

1. You seem to be confusing the difference between PeP (post exposure prophalaxis) with PReP (pre exposure prophalaxis). What you describe in your first paragraph is Pep, which has been shown to be extremely effective in lowering risk after a potential exposure. Prep is something that, if taken every day, greatly reduces your risk of being infected by 99%. NOTHING is 100% effective. Not even a vaccine. There is always going to be a few people for whom it doesn't work....hence the importance of herd immunity.

2. Yes, truvada is one of the combination of therapies given to the already infected, and the main one that reduces viral load to the point of being "undetectable". This is what lead to the discovery and use of truvada as a preventative measure! They never created this drug for this purpose, but it has been borne out as another use. Speaking of being undetectable, I haven't touched on this much here, but the latest studies show that undetectable HIV positive people do not pass on the virus. Do you ever wonder why other rich countries that also have vibrant gay communities and arguably worse injection drug habits have lower rates of HIV transmission? It's because they have universal health care and have thus had greater access to treatment. Treating HIV reduces the spread of HIV. Some have argued that ARVs that have made HIV into a manageable disease has kept us from eliminating the virus and only made things worse. This is just plain foolish.

3. Do you not understand the relevance of adherence? You can interpret the findings of all the studies as incorrectly as you want, but anyone who has the ability to comprehend medical trials, studies, and risk probability can understand what the CDC, the WHO, etc. understand: if you take this pill daily as directed, you will not get HIV. The less you adhere, the more your risk. The pill is more effective than condoms, period. Just google the studies that address couples where one partner is POZ and the other NEG. Get back to me after that.

So, that being the case.....why is the focus not, as Supe Weiner suggests, getting everyone access to this drug? Why is the AHF so invested in telling people that the drug doesn't work when they themselves admit to the efficacy of taking the drug every day and base their concern on the idea that people won't take it as directed? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: we know women are capable of taking a pill to prevent pregnancy that has side effects sometimes worse than truvada (re:mild to none), but we don't think people who are in high risk groups for HIV will be able and willing to take a pill every morning that will keep them from contracting a deadly disease? Really? We think so little of ourselves or our brethren?

To answer your direct question to me: Hell no I wouldn't let someone bareback me if they said they were on truvada! That's just as ridiculous as letting someone bareback you now by saying, "Yeah, I'm clean and tested." I would only let someone bareback me if I was on the drug myself! That's the whole point! This puts the power in your hands, the owness on you.

[lifeisfiction]

You still don't get it. I never said not to take the pill, I said the pill alone is not sufficient.

Sorry in not saying PreP and not PeP. Its at what stage you are taking the drugs, doesn't mean they use completely different drugs.

Usually people like you are entertaining, but the truth of the matter you only see what you want to see in a discussion. Now I am not going to sit here all night and argue. You have seen my evidence on the effectiveness and you already know it can help, but its effectiveness is greatly exaggerated.

I said it, the main reason I put the article is to help people not develop a misconception about Truvada. The sexy numbers tossed around will lead people to think that its sufficient alone to prevent HIV.

By the way you do know the CDC, WHO and many health organization do not do the studies themselves. They only review the results and methods of how it was done. Trust me their have been a ton of drugs who have passed their muster only to have catastrophic results. Its sad how many times this happens. A good doctor will look at the study and determine how effective the drug is despite glowing recommendations from the CDC. The only way to tell how effective a drug is after years of use can people really tell how effective it is in the reducing the transmission of HIV.

You answered my question and of course you wouldn't do it, but the question that bothers me is who many will. I thank you for wanting people to be safe as much as possible. Not going into side affects because this drug has really nasty side effects, you and I want the transmission of HIV to be reduce. I do not like how the media is portraying it because its sending out the wrong message that this is best means to prevent HIV. Common sense and self control will go much further.