Printable View
Robyn makes a good point also. I didn't think of that. Many other stds other than HIV. Does it prevent hepatitis? Herpes? Warts? Robyn seems to indicate it would do nothing for the latter two. So, it couldn't responsibly be used as a license to engage in more unprotected sex than one already engages in.
Thanks, Donkey. To be clear I am not advocating anything more than giving people access and knowledge about a life saving drug. Read any article about this drug. The doctors currently dolling it out as a preventative measure live in the reality that although condoms are effective at stopping the spread of HIV, they have not been effective at radically lowering infection rates. This is just the truth that people crave intimacy and won't always wear a condom. However, pretty much no one (including myself) is advocating a return to the 70's bath house culture. While it's a fun fantasy, even a pig like myself couldn't envision getting ten loads a night in a stinking steam room with all manner of infectious material other than HIV floating about. Maybe once a month, and I think that's what leading physicians are banking on. Taking this drug requires you to get screened and requires continued testing, which arguably has been more effective at halting the spread of HIV than anything else.
thats a bullshit statistic. first of all, neither of those are incurable, so you contract it and then treat it and its gone. if you are saying 25 percent have EVER had clam or gon then ok maybe that is true. but how much higher is that then the general population?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapatio
the fact is that the adult industry is highly regulated with 14 day testing for clam, gon, hep c, syph, and hiv. it is much safer than the general population.
i have to agree 100 percent with West Angelino on this one. the FDA has approved a drug which can decrease the chances of HIV by many many fold. People should be shouting about this from the rooftops. But the US pharmaceutical industry and medical industry and the HIV lobbying arm plus the condom companies all don't want a cure for HIV, they want a managed treatment so they can continue to make money.
And let's talk about the condom. Where is it that the condom protects against anything? Show me on the condom itself where it says that? Oh that's right it doesn't bc the condom is bullshit. It protects the female against pregnancy...most of the time. syphilis, hep C those are skin to skin and render the condom worthless. Anyone who thinks the condom is 100 percent is just as retarded as thinking truvada is 100 percent.
OK. UCLA is really bad at science, and the CDC is a right wing fundamentalist sham.Quote:
Originally Posted by christianxxx
no shit, one more time since you can't read....1 in 4 has EVER contracted clam or gonorrhea. Hey genius, thats for thousands and thousands of scenes over years. What does that have to do with anything? its no higher than the general population.
The only difference is that adult performers have to test every 2 weeks which gives a public record of every single positive. There is no cheating or lying. You have our EXACT statistics.
One more time, clamydia & gonorrhea are a treatable STD that goes away in less than a week. Big deal. What's your point and what does that have to do with Truvada?
BTW the UCLA study was funded by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation which is attacking the porn industry for not using condoms. And of course the AHF is funded by the condom companies. lol And the CDC has absolutely zero to do with that statistic other than being the host of the conference where UCLA talked about it. Try again.
I understand the backers- but I can't believe UCLA is making up the numbers.
Short of a rebuttal of the data, the funding means nothing.
I can see how you'd be 100% unbiased though.
And the CDC, in the interest of fairness, regularly hosts disreputable scientists. I see how that makes a difference.
Oh,yeah-
Lol, etc.
Forgot that part.
Since you asked....Quote:
Originally Posted by christianxxx
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
Hardly worthless, old chap..Quote:
Originally Posted by christianxxx
Has anyone said the condom is 100% safe or effective?Quote:
Originally Posted by christianxxx
Just to correct the record. Hepatitis c is very difficult to spread through sexual intercourse (I don't think it's skin to skin), but it is possible and condom use may help prevent transmission
http://hepc.liverfoundation.org/diag...sex-and-hep-c/
Hepatitis B, on the other hand, is more likely to be spread through intercourse, and condom use can prevent transmission.
http://www.webmd.com/hepatitis/hepat...estions?page=2
Edit: actually if you go to the first page of the webmd link it says that Hep C is transmitted through contact with an infected person's blood. Hep B, on the other hand, is more likely to be transmitted during sex. The link says it is 50-100 times easier to get Hep B than HIV through intercourse with an infected person and since body fluids carry the virus, condoms provide some enhancement of safety, though obviously not ultimate protection.
condoms only protect the area that is covered which means shit in regards to skin viruses like herpes and hpvQuote:
Originally Posted by RobynBlakeTS
Does the industry rely on PCR or P24 Antigen testing?Quote:
Originally Posted by christianxxx
GEN-Probe APTIMA HIV-1 RNA Qualitative Assay
do you have to go through additional testing, it seems supplementalQuote:
Originally Posted by christianxxx
Intended Use
The APTIMA® HIV-1 RNA Qualitative Assay is an in vitro nucleic acid assay system for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) in human plasma. It is intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of HIV-1 infection, including acute or primary infection. Presence of HIV-1 RNA in the plasma of patients without antibodies to HIV-1 is indicative of acute or primary HIV-1 infection.
The APTIMA HIV-1 RNA Qualitative Assay may also be used as an additional test, when it is reactive, to confirm HIV-1 infection in an individual whose specimen is repeatedly reactive for HIV-1 antibodies.
This assay is not intended for use in screening blood or plasma donors.
http://www.gen-probe.com/pdfs/pi/501623-EN-RevD.pdf
nope same test every 2 weeks.
Truvada is ment to redeuce the viral load for HIV infected people eventualy making the virus undetectable, but it is still there. It is by no means a get out of HIV for free (well free its also quite expensive) card. Plus al the other health concerns allready mentioned
The last refuge of a scoundrel.
Even if the bug is undetectable you can still infect others.
I am very suspicious of Westeatangelino
For the time being for those not in a rock solid relationship its go protected all the way....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
All of you (except for Christian) have a very uninformed view of HIV. Actually, you are informed, just informed by the scare tactics of the AIDS lobby. I completely understand that the way they operate stems from a time when AIDS was the leading cause of death for men aged 18-35 in many major US cities. However, this is NOT 1983. Multiple studies have shown that people with HIV whose load goes down to undetectable have a very very very hard time spreading the virus. Study after study of serodiscordant couples shows this.
One last time....TRUVADA PREVENTS INFECTION IN HIV NEGATIVE PEOPLE.
So you gonna trust those you fuck bareback to tell YOU the truth, Westheangelino? Trust that they are negative or that they are taking this wonder drug. You are an irresponsible person. And how often do you get tested before injecting girls or guys with your quite possibley infected sperm? End of story.
Truvada costs like 30€ / 40$ per day. For the Rest of your life...
That is a bit beyond "basic human right"
Um, the whole point is that you DON'T have to trust anyone else. If you're taking it, then you will be protected from contracting HIV. Kind of the whole point. You and others keep bashing me or anyone who would want to take this drug as an irresponsible person....how so? How is wanting to take a drug that has been proven to halt the spread of a deadly disease irresponsible??Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
taking arvs to prevent contraction of hiv is responsible but having sex without protection is notQuote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
you should seek therapy
Unfortunately, things like vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs to cure diseases are a thing of the past. These days its all about maintenance drugs. They are far more profitable than vaccines or cures. Trillions more. So its either play safe or become be rich so you can afford the drugs. I'm not even close to being poor, but at 40 bucks a day for protection, forget about it.
Hurry -- Sign up to be on a $40 a day leash!
That's the major problem. The cost is too simply too high at this point. It could be worth distributing for free to certain at risk groups, but then, how reliably would they take the drug anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teydyn
It seems, at this point, that the drug would have the most use for people in specific situations, for example, bare back performers in gay, TS, or higher risk hetero porn, or perhaps affluent individuals for whom bare back sex is that much of a priority. It doesn't seem worth the cost for most people when effective cheaper alternatives are available.
arvs are powerful drugs i doubt someone would be able to maintain a successful career in sex work considering the side affectsQuote:
Originally Posted by wiltthestilt
http://www.truvadapreprems.com/#. Their very web site says to combine Truvada and safer sex practices. Because Truvada and hepatitis have some nasty interactions.
Not to mention the side effects and cost.
Have any of you read anything? Have you googled anything? Clearly not. First of all, the cost is NOT prohibitive. Most insurers are covering this as it is far less expensive for them to give someone truvada to someone at risk than wait for them to become positive and give them even more drugs.
Also, please remember that any drug (think of any ad on TV) has to list all the various side effects, no matter how often they occur or how severe they are. Everyone reacts to drugs differently. I don't even take aspirin because I have bad reactions to it. BUT nearly everything I have read says that the effects are exceedingly mild and well worth it if you are in a high risk group. Every major study also shows that people on truvada do not start barebacking like crazy.
Tell me, why are you riding this pony so hard.
Do you have stock?
Never mind years at med school, just get on google!Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Stay informed by all means, but don't rely on the internet.
No. Most insurers AREN'T covering this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
That's just something you'd like. But, the reality of it is, it's not happening now, and it's never going to happen.
That is a big arsed "But Nearly Everything".Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
You ready to bet your life on it?
I'm not against you here.
If you want to fuck yourself into the grave, god bless you and good luck with that.
I'm just thinking that if any of our future sexual partners cross paths, I hope I'm the one who got there first! :shrug
http://quotes-lover.com/wp-content/u...e-quotes-3.jpg
I ve had a chad with a w doctors about it and they all agree that :
- the pill has serious side effects: you will basically spend your days vomiting and in intense body pain
- it damages your organs , even one course of pep can have long lasting damaging effects
- it's not a 100% safe
similarly bleach kills the hiv virus but drinking bleach would kill you and the virus.
http://www.healthline.com/health-new...nsurers-050814
http://myprepexperience.blogspot.com...ada-track.html
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/...he-pill-ctd-4/
http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/a...-providers.pdf
So, everyone (including the state of Mass.) posting these articles are either full or shit or just misinformed regarding insurance coverage for truvada? Really?
As for some of you making these ridiculous comments about me poisoning your sexual swimming pool and "hoping you get to them first" before I sully your sexual partners with disease: so what? I mean, the condom is 100% safe and effective, and you're always using one, right? You would never bareback ever right? So, you should be totally fine according to your own arguments
Someone mentioned stock...Gilead Sciences is doing very well right now.....just sayin'
^ Usually happens when you invent a wonder drug
Oh yeah...they also have that Hep.C drug...it's expensive and soon will have competition...but it's also doing wonders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
I bought some stock...so keep bumping this thread...lol.
So you're saying this drug works almost as well as a condom? It's pretty simple.If your'e going to fuck around wear a condom. Never be a beta tester when it comes to medication.
Manufactured by Gilead Sciences, Truvada PrEP has proven effective at preventing HIV transmission up to 99 percent of the time when used as directed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
from one of your links
^ yep. 99% is more than a condom. I don't understand the statements of "this works as well as a condom.....so use a condom!" Why the fuck wouldn't you use either both or just the pill????
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...event-hiv.html
Is the New Yorker a reputable enough source?
"The corresponding figures for PrEP are much better: while adherence is a concern, as it is with condoms, Truvada offers H.I.V. protection that is more effective than any other method short of abstinence. In the N.I.H. study, for example, 5.2 per cent of the placebo group “seroconverted,” or became H.I.V. positive, compared with 2.9 per cent of the Truvada group. That’s a forty-four-per-cent added protection over-all—better than inconsistent condom use. More impressively, patients who maintained a detectable amount of the drug in their system were protected at a rate of ninety-five per cent. (A later statistical analysis estimated that the drug would need to be taken four times a week to offer protection in that range.) Grant said that people in the study who took the drug four to seven days a week “were absolutely protected. We didn’t have anyone seroconvert in our cohort in the United States.”
Taking Truvada to prevent H.I.V. comes with very few risks. In the N.I.H. study, one in two hundred people had to temporarily go off the pill owing to kidney issues, but even those people were able to resume treatment after a couple of weeks. While bone-density loss occasionally occurs in Truvada takers who are already infected with the virus, no significant bone issues have emerged in the PrEP studies. And though about one in ten PrEP takers suffer from nausea at the onset of treatment, it usually dissipates after a couple of weeks. According to the U.N. panel’s Karim, Truvada’s side-effects profile is “terrific,” and Grant said that common daily medications like aspirin and birth control, as well as drugs to control blood pressure and cholesterol, are all arguably more toxic than Truvada."
Your focusing far to much on the fact that the drug prevents HIV replication in a person. Yes that is a good thing and ignoring the current bad side effects a great achievement for science and medicine. The problem is you are now using this drug as a green light for bareback sex, but you are ignoring all the other risks present in that venture. Yes this drug will stop you getting HIV but not using a condom opens you up to the risk of gaining all the other STD's are there. Yes condoms are not 100% but they do help lower the risk of infections and the passing off STD's.