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

[lifeisfiction]

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.

I have actually read all your articles and no I have never seen one that countered the NYT's article. You keep claiming there is one. If you are referring the article in the advocate, that did not address the issues found in the article.

Trish, I think you're right. Maybe he is getting paid to advertise, lol.

[trish]

If you take lipitor for an extended period of time, your odds of a heart attack don't increase.

Of course they do. You can treat each year as an independent event. The risk for each single year is the same as any other year, but if you intend to use it over an extended period of time, the risk is higher for that projected period of use.

If you take the birth control pill, your odds of having a baby don't increase over time either.

Yes they do, and for the same reason. If you intend to use the pill for an extended period time, the probability of getting pregnant over that projected period is higher than the probability of getting pregnant say this year if you're on the pill.

You clearly don't understand how medications work.

No, you don't understand; and yet you're here giving everyone advice. I wouldn't care if you weren't advising people to be reckless. Nothing wrong with using Truvada and condoms, as long as you're aware of the risks associated with Truvada and keep an eye out for symptoms.

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

Plenty of people get paid for shilling products on internet forums. You wouldn't be the first.

[Westheangelino]

Of course they do. You can treat each year as an independent event. The risk for each single year is the same as any other year, but if you intend to use it over an extended period of time, the risk is higher for that projected period of use.
Yes they do, and for the same reason. If you intend to use the pill for an extended period time, the probability of getting pregnant over that projected period is higher than the probability of getting pregnant say this year if you're on the pill.

No, you don't understand; and yet you're here giving everyone advice. I wouldn't care if you weren't advising people to be reckless. Nothing wrong with using Truvada and condoms, as long as you're aware of the risks associated with Truvada and keep an eye out for symptoms.

Plenty of people get paid for shilling products on internet forums. You wouldn't be the first.

YOUR CHANCES OF GETTING PREGNANT OVER TIME DO NOT INCREASE WHILE ON THE PILL

Year number five is no different than year number two while on the pill. Stop spouting nonsense.

In any case, these things aren't even comparable! If enough HIV + people are in treatment (and people on ARV treatment do NOT pass on HIV), and enough neg people are on Truvada then we can end HIV as a real risk within the decade. Free your mind. Your ass will follow

[trish]

Of course year five is no different than year two. But what counts is the projected period of use. This is especially true when one's health is at stake. Over a twenty year period Truvada is 82% effective, not 99%.

If Truvada can end HIV as a real risk in a decade, then HIV in tandem with condoms will do even better. Free your mind. Your ass will follow.

[Westheangelino]

Here's a little something to open your eyes.....

http://betablog.org/51-new-hiv-infec...x-study-finds/

[trish]

Refutes not a thing I've been saying.

[trish]

If everyone (or the vast majority) used Truvada, then more than 50% of all new HIV infections would be the result of the failure of Truvada to prevent the infection. The study merely attests to the popularity of condom use. It also demonstrates the good sense behind not depending on one single kind of preventive measure. Don't just rely on condoms. Likewise, don't just rely on Truvada.

[lifeisfiction]

Here's a little something to open your eyes.....

http://betablog.org/51-new-hiv-infec...x-study-finds/

I am starting to think you are making money promoting this product. When I read an article I go to the actual study. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0107540

Sometimes I wonder if people actually read what the study says. It is probably guess on limited factors. Its a mathematical model based on the assumption. I don't know if you read any scientific articles before, but you always read how the study is done. They never asked anyone just ran the numbers. Investigative research in the medical field yields the best results. For example http://www.aidsmap.com/Condom-effica.../page/1324955/.

At this point, you are going to keep pushing the drug. I pray and hope that I can be wrong, however I suspect I am not about the effectiveness. Like I said this won't be the first time a drug being pushed was as effective as they stated. Yes, they can be sued, but the money made from the drug will cover it.

Look West if you want to gamble on Truvada go ahead. I am not taking a gamble on my life. Truvada with condoms might give a great protection. But I believe through your own statement, you don't have to worry about condoms you really are going to risk heavy. Truvada alone is not good. And we never talked about the side effects.

Anyways, I just wanted to people to be aware of the risk they are taking.

I rather wait and see.

[Westheangelino]

If everyone (or the vast majority) used Truvada, then more than 50% of all new HIV infections would be the result of the failure of Truvada to prevent the infection. The study merely attests to the popularity of condom use. It also demonstrates the good sense behind not depending on one single kind of preventive measure. Don't just rely on condoms. Likewise, don't just rely on Truvada.

I don't even know what that paragraph means. As of now, next to no one is on truvada. This study has nothing to do with it.

[trish]

Let’s take the promotor’s word for it that the effectiveness of Truvada is 99%. This means that if you use the product as directed for a period of one year, then the probability that you will be infected during that period of use is one chance in a hundred; i.e. 1%. Already you can see this is going to vary from individual to individual and region to region because different people are prone to different behaviors and some locales are hotter than others in regards to HIV. But we’ll continue to go with the promotor’s numbers; i.e. 99% effectiveness over a year’s use.

So what then is the probability of getting infected if you intend to use Truvada as directed for a period of five years? Easy. It’s the complement of the probability of not getting infected over that period, which is the product of the probability of not getting infect the first, second, third, fourth and fifth years: i.e. 1 - (.99)(.99)(.99)(.99)(.99) = 0.049. That about a 5% chance.

Okay, so what if you are 30 years old and your life-partner is infected with HIV. You plan to spend your life with this individual. You imagine you might be having sex with him at least into your sixties. So if you use Truvada over the next 30 years as directed, can you calculate now the probability that you’ll get infected at some point within the next thirty years? Yes, you can. It’s just 1-(.99)^30 = 0.26; i.e. a 26% chance. We can say that the effectiveness of Truvada over a 30 year period is 74%. See why you might want to use condoms as a second line of defense?

Suppose you had a revolver with an enormous cylinder that can hold one hundred bullets. Suppose further that all the chambers are empty except one. Each year on your birthday you spin the cylinder, point the pistol at your head and pull the trigger. Each year there’s a 99% probability of surviving your birthday. But if you’re thirty years old, the probability that you’ll live to see sixty is 74%. Wanna play?

Sure you might survive. Suppose there are 100 people who play this game. You might survive the first decade. But somewhere around 9 or 10 of your fellow players won’t. Your probability of surviving the next two decades is about 82%. That’s better than 74% because you already survived one decade and only have two more to go. You might even make it to your fiftieth birthday. If you do you’ll be one of about 82 survivors. Given the fact that you made to your fiftieth birthday, the probability of seeing your sixtieth is now better than 90%. Pretty good. If you make it to your sixtieth birthday you will be one of about 74 survivors. Congratulations. The game is obviously in your favor. But it’s also a game you obviously don’t want to play if you don’t have to. If you do have to (love can make you do many strange things) maybe you want to do something to increase your odds. Plug the barrel of the gun with cement. Turn on the safety and solder it in place. Put a condom over the barrel. Anything.

Yes, yes...the Russian roulette metaphor is a bit harsh because HIV infection is not an immediate death sentence. But that’s beside the point. The probabilities are the point.

Some studies suggest that condom’s alone can be 90% to 95% effective against the spread of HIV infection over a period of one year’s use. Let compromise and say it’s 92.5% effective against the transmission of HIV over one year’s use. It seems likely (to me) that condom failure and “Truvada failure” would be independent events. If so, given that you both use a condom and take Truvada as directed, then the probability of getting infected within one year is (0.075)(0.01) = 0.00075. Hence the effectiveness of the combo is 0.9995 (over a one year period). What’s the probability of getting an infection within the next thirty years if you use the combo? Easy 1-.9995^30 = 0.015. So the probability of not getting infected sometime within the next thirty years is 0.985; i.e. the effectiveness of the combo over a thirty year period is 98.5%.