PREP: Who is on Truvada?

[Laphroaig]

West, it's very simple, if you truly wanted to help eradicate HIV as you claim, then your message would be to use BOTH Truvada AND condoms together as the most effective method. Instead you continue with your evangelical like crusade for the use of truvada alone.

Once again, you've proved that your only real concern is your own selfish pleasure.

Antibiotic resistant forms of a number of different STDs are increasing. While I believe that, at the moment, some of the scare stories are exaggerated, there's no doubt that at some point whether in 5 or 50 years time a crisis is imminent. It's irresponsible people like you and your false message that will speed it's arrival.

Nobody on here is doubting that Truvada has it's use, but every person who thinks condoms are unnecessary after reading your posts, and contracts an STD as a result, is on your conscience.

[Westheangelino]

I suppose I'll pose one very simple question to you all (let's see if you are as forthcoming and honest as I am): should MSM (men who have sex with men) with multiple partners (i.e. non monogamous) take Truvada or not regardless of whether or not they use condoms?

[Laphroaig]

Yes they should, if they are barebacking. However, because that's a lifestyle choice (barebacking, not being gay, before anyone asks), they should pay for it, not be given it for free.

I don't know the costs involved, so I dont know if a lifetimes supply of Truvada is cheaper than a lifetimes supply of HIV treatment medication.

[Westheangelino]

Yes they should, if they are barebacking. However, because that's a lifestyle choice (barebacking, not being gay, before anyone asks), they should pay for it, not be given it for free.

I don't know the costs involved, so I dont know if a lifetimes supply of Truvada is cheaper than a lifetimes supply of HIV treatment medication.

Interesting response. Trying to wrap my head around your logic. Where to start....

1. It's pretty easy to figure out which is more or less expensive. Truvada is one of several drugs prescribed to people who are already HIV positive. Currently, they have to take their drug cocktail FOREVER on a daily basis or they WILL become sick and eventually die. There have been periods over the past two years when I have been in months long monogamous relationships with female partners and thus temporarily stopped taking Truvada. Truvada can or cannot be used all your life. If you want to have unprotected anal sex with various partners for your entire life, then you should definitely take it. However, I think we can both agree that that is not going to be a reality for most people.

2. Some would argue that being gay or trans is a lifestyle choice. Smoking, eating fatty foods, drinking alcohol, skydiving, having children are DEFINITELY lifestyle choices. So, where are you going to draw the line here? Are we to deny insurance coverage or medicade/care to life long smokers? Take the skydiver out of traction when his chute doesn't open? Do you stand with certain people and companies who don't want to pay for birth control because they claim not to want to pay for women who just want to have promiscuous sex?

3. How do you feel about serodiscordant couples? (one poz one neg)? Should they continue wearing condoms til death do them part?

[Laphroaig]

1. I said I didn't know the costs, so thank you for partially enlightening me. You always manage to avoid answering what the actual cost of using truvada is anyway. However, I think we can both agree that condoms are still a far more cost effective method of prevention, so that negates your argument altogether. If you have a lifestyle where, you never know when the next one night stand is going to happen, then you would have to be on Truvada FOREVER (or at least until you stop being sexually active, which these days could be 80+). What happens if during one of your monogamous periods, while not on truvada, you feel the urge for something more risky? Condoms, you can always carry in your wallet, and only need to throw away after their expiry date.

2. There's no point in going down that argument. People have no control over their sexuality, but they can control how they live their life. As for your examples. Smokers, yes I would deny them. The risks and links to various diseases are well documented and publicised so there's no excuses anymore. Skydiving is ok, accidents happen and that's why they pay insurance. Birth control is more complicated, as that's more of a religious objection which is an entirely different argument.

3. Yes, in the grand scheme of things, if they want to be together, it's hardly a big sacrifice.

[Westheangelino]

1. I said I didn't know the costs, so thank you for partially enlightening me. You always manage to avoid answering what the actual cost of using truvada is anyway. However, I think we can both agree that condoms are still a far more cost effective method of prevention, so that negates your argument altogether. If you have a lifestyle where, you never know when the next one night stand is going to happen, then you would have to be on Truvada FOREVER (or at least until you stop being sexually active, which these days could be 80+). What happens if during one of your monogamous periods, while not on truvada, you feel the urge for something more risky? Condoms, you can always carry in your wallet, and only need to throw away after their expiry date.

2. There's no point in going down that argument. People have no control over their sexuality, but they can control how they live their life. As for your examples. Smokers, yes I would deny them. The risks and links to various diseases are well documented and publicised so there's no excuses anymore. Skydiving is ok, accidents happen and that's why they pay insurance. Birth control is more complicated, as that's more of a religious objection which is an entirely different argument.

3. Yes, in the grand scheme of things, if they want to be together, it's hardly a big sacrifice.

Sir, your points are completely inane. Also, please stop stating that I'm dodging questions. I've been quite honest and forthright.

NO, we do not agree that condoms are a more effective strategy. If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also, the idea that a couple should use condoms forever is completely crazy and also ineffective. Even in a perfect case scenario, what if the condom fails? You do know this happens a lot right?

Also, are we to deny coverage for people already being treated for HIV already? You would pull the plug on smokers, so why not for someone who was barebacking in the 90's and now has their medical bill picked up by the state?

In short, your odd preoccupation with cost and your complete lack of understanding of how people enjoy sex lead me to believe that you're completely out of touch.

[Westheangelino]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ent-effective/


BOOM

[Laphroaig]

Note, I said more cost effective not more effective, there's a subtle but distinct difference which you failed to pick up on. However, you are dodging questions because you've never addressed the issue of the cost of truvada, whether on this thread or previous ones.

I'm not saying that condoms alone are the perfect answer, but if used correctly, which many people don't, then failures are rare. I've already stated that the most effective strategy would be the use of both. It's your continued crusade for the sole use of Truvada in place of condoms that I find to be utterly stupid and irresponsible.

As for whether I'd "pull the plug" as you put it, I'm not getting into that debate with you as it's pointless because our NHS in the UK is run in a very different way to the US system and I don't even pretend to fully understand how that works.

[Westheangelino]

http://www.aidsmap.com/Provision-of-.../page/2972926/

Here you go. This should answer most of your cost questions, specially tailored to your English sensibilities.

[Laphroaig]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ent-effective/


BOOM

I'll repeat it again, because you don't appear to be able to read. I've never disputed that Truvada is effective against HIV, but there are many more STD's out there, therefore overall condoms or a combination of both are better.

http://www.aidsmap.com/Provision-of-.../page/2972926/



Here you go. This should answer most of your cost questions, specially tailored to your English sensibilities.

Again, this ONLY deals with HIV and even then, admits that it would only be cost effective if only offered to those having CONDOMLESS sex. In otherwords, the use of condoms effectively negates the need to take drugs for the rest of your (sexual) life.

Oh, and one other fact you're showing your total ignorance over. I'm SCOTTISH, not English. Please learn the difference.

I'll ask you one question, is truvada alone a better option than truvada and condoms combined in preventing the spread of STD's?