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

[Westheangelino]

When you engage in riskier activity it carries a higher risk. People who contract HIV are engaging in riskier sexual activities. If you want to have bareback sex, then in a monogamous relationship with both parties being tested prior to bareback sexual activity. Its safe. If however you wanted to sleep with multiple partners then its best to minimize the risk, because people lie and are dishonest. A more scary scenario are people who are willing to put other people's health at risk for their own pleasure. I can mention even scarier forms out there. Its best to take the precautions that keep you safe, however if you feel the riskier options provide a fuller sexual experience, just understand what you are engaging in.

If Truvada proves to be true and your only concern is getting HIV then its the drug for you. I do wish you caution, the drug has not been proven to be as effective. In the end only the pharmaceutical company producing it and promoting it doesn't have to live personally the consequence of HIV.

Nearly everything you just wrote is utter nonsense. You understand that thousands of people contract HIV every year while in "monogamous" relationships right?

Most men don't want monogamous relationships. This is a fact no matter how much the mainstream gay agenda would have the straight world believe otherwise.

You keep saying "if" Truvada proves effective. It IS effective and has been proven so.

Really? People taking it are the only ones who stand to lose if Truvada proves inneffective? (which isn't going to happen anyways) For sake of argument, you don't think that Gilead, the drug's manufacturer, stands to face massive litigation should we see cases of people contracting HIV despite acceptable levels of the drug in their blood? (again, this won't happen, but just sake of argument).

[MrBest]

Nearly everything you just wrote is utter nonsense. You understand that thousands of people contract HIV every year while in "monogamous" relationships right?

dishonesty has nothing to do with it

[MrBest]

For sake of argument, you don't think that Gilead, the drug's manufacturer, stands to face massive litigation should we see cases of people contracting HIV despite acceptable levels of the drug in their blood? (again, this won't happen, but just sake of argument).

why would they if theyre not marketing their drug like you are

[lifeisfiction]

Nearly everything you just wrote is utter nonsense. You understand that thousands of people contract HIV every year while in "monogamous" relationships right?

Most men don't want monogamous relationships. This is a fact no matter how much the mainstream gay agenda would have the straight world believe otherwise.

You keep saying "if" Truvada proves effective. It IS effective and has been proven so.

Really? People taking it are the only ones who stand to lose if Truvada proves inneffective? (which isn't going to happen anyways) For sake of argument, you don't think that Gilead, the drug's manufacturer, stands to face massive litigation should we see cases of people contracting HIV despite acceptable levels of the drug in their blood? (again, this won't happen, but just sake of argument).

Well if you have to cheat don't take your partner down with you. So men hate monogamous relationships and women love monogamous relationships, well that would explain why I know personally of many married women cheating on their husbands.

If you are in a real monogamous relationship then it shouldn't be a problem. Honestly that is the worst logic I ever heard of to say everyone is cheating so you need to take it.

Lets state it again, you are not going to get HIV if you engage in proper safe sex with no incident. That's not going to happen. All you have done is say that my statement is incorrect on something you personally feel happens with no evidence to back it.

Most people get HIV through sexual contact have engaged in riskier sex. We all know that so its nothing new.

You know my position on this information and again you have never present an argument saying the New York Times article was inaccurate. I read through all the past posts and all the articles where before the NYT article and the one article you placed afterward did not counter the study.

Why would I even spend time arguing because I have seen people suffer from misinformation. West if you feel my argument is invalid, then ignore it. If people want to take the risk I cannot stop them. Sex is grand, but its not worth risking your life over it.

[Westheangelino]

why would they if theyre not marketing their drug like you are

Because they're selling it as HIV prevention and allowing entire states (NY, Michigan, Mass., so far) to recommend it as such. If it actually doesn't prevent HIV.....do the math.

[Westheangelino]

Well if you have to cheat don't take your partner down with you. So men hate monogamous relationships and women love monogamous relationships, well that would explain why I know personally of many married women cheating on their husbands.

If you are in a real monogamous relationship then it shouldn't be a problem. Honestly that is the worst logic I ever heard of to say everyone is cheating so you need to take it.

Lets state it again, you are not going to get HIV if you engage in proper safe sex with no incident. That's not going to happen. All you have done is say that my statement is incorrect on something you personally feel happens with no evidence to back it.

Most people get HIV through sexual contact have engaged in riskier sex. We all know that so its nothing new.

You know my position on this information and again you have never present an argument saying the New York Times article was inaccurate. I read through all the past posts and all the articles where before the NYT article and the one article you placed afterward did not counter the study.

Why would I even spend time arguing because I have seen people suffer from misinformation. West if you feel my argument is invalid, then ignore it. If people want to take the risk I cannot stop them. Sex is grand, but its not worth risking your life over it.

LIES. Go back a few pages. The follow up study came out after that NYT article.

Also, I am NOT proposing that every man, woman, and child take this. Neither do the CDC or WHO. They're saying that all sexually active MSM (men who have sex with men) take it. And, for their purposes that includes Tgirls and their admirers.

I will not be recommending this drug to any of my straight friends. BUT this is not that type of forum.

[lifeisfiction]

If you have the article, then post the link. I want to see which article you have that counters the NYTs article. Don't tell me to go back and read it. Just post it.

[trish]

Where are you getting this information???? With perfect use, Truvada is 99% effective. More than condoms when used perfectly, which almost never are used perfectly.

Given 99% effective over a one year period, Truvada is only 82% effective over a twenty year period. Where am I getting this? I'm doing the math. The risk of side-effects also rises exponentially with time of projected use. I'm not saying don't use Truvada. But beware of the risks and use condoms too...unless you don't give a damn about your own health.

Question: Why don't you participate in any of other discussions and threads in these forums? Do you regard yourself as a member of the HA community? What is your real interest here? There's little evidence that you care anything at all about this community and lot's of evidence that you're very interested in pushing Truvada. How much do you get paid?

[Westheangelino]

If you have the article, then post the link. I want to see which article you have that counters the NYTs article. Don't tell me to go back and read it. Just post it.

I'm not going to repost for a THIRD time. I don't have to give citations every time I post something that isn't new. Besides, you're not the person I'm trying to reach. You've clearly made up your mind and will interpret anything I post (even hard, verifiable numbers) to fit your view.

I'm trying to provide information on something that everyone should know about but few people do.

[Westheangelino]

Given 99% effective over a one year period, Truvada is only 82% effective over a twenty year period. Where am I getting this? I'm doing the math. The risk of side-effects also rises exponentially with time of projected use. I'm not saying don't use Truvada. But beware of the risks and use condoms too...unless you don't give a damn about your own health.

Question: Why don't you participate in any of other discussions and threads in these forums? Do you regard yourself as a member of the HA community? What is your real interest here? There's little evidence that you care anything at all about this community and lot's of evidence that you're very interested in pushing Truvada. How much do you get paid?

You clearly don't understand how medications work. If you take lipitor for an extended period of time, your odds of a heart attack don't increase. If you take the birth control pill, your odds of having a baby don't increase over time either.

You do understand that you can search to see any and all posts someone has ever made right? So, go look at mine. I've read this board for over six years. You can imagine how someone will get bored seeing variations of the same exact thread over this time and thus won't comment on them right?

"Am I gay?"
"Who is this girl?"
"Who has the biggest dick?"
"Visting X city...what to do there?"
"Top or bottom?"

^80% of the threads on here are this. Which is totally fine! This is a great place to inform newbies. It just shocked me to learn about the drug myself and shocked me even more that we aren't all shouting off the roof tops about it!

And really? You think I'm getting paid for this? What a horrible marketing strategy that would be! LOL