Throwing other peoples money at it is always a good solution...
Printable View
Throwing other peoples money at it is always a good solution...
^ former???
What does that even mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teydyn
a matter of priority. truvada won't want you being a spokesman for two productsQuote:
Originally Posted by 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 barebackingQuote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBest
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?
post your sourceQuote:
Originally Posted by 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.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
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/op...tion.html?_r=0