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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westheangelino

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.

---

What she is saying is that if a lot of people use condoms and some condoms fail then those transmissions will comprise a large percentage of the total transmissions. Let's say 90 out of one hundred people use condoms, and condoms are 90% effective. You would have 9 transmissions from condom use. If unprotected sex resulted in transmission 90% of the time, then out of the ten remaining people, 9 would be infected. Condoms would comprise 50% of the new infections (9 out of 18 despite having a much lower infection rate. These are hypothetical figures but that's why the statistic provided in the study is not intended to enlighten. If you don't say what the transmission rate is, then you are not making a fair comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westheangelino

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.

---

That you don't understand her initial point and don't understand her hypothetical either is embarrassing. A logical person looks at a study that says 51% of new transmissions are in people using condoms and says "I bet that means a lot of people are using condoms and having a lot of sex. Also condoms are not infallible as no single method is."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

That you don't understand her initial point and don't understand her hypothetical either is embarrassing. A logical person looks at a study that says 51% of new transmissions are in people using condoms and says "I bet that means a lot of people are using condoms and having a lot of sex. Also condoms are not infallible as no single method is."

---

Bingo. Bronco gets what Trish and I was getting at.

(I just want to know how much West is getting paid, because I want in.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westheangelino

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.

---

You mean the company selling the drug says it does something? Clearly it must do that. I've never heard of a company using false or misleading marketing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamon

You mean the company selling the drug says it does something? Clearly it must do that. I've never heard of a company using false or misleading marketing.

---

You know what's interesting. There was a court decision not too long ago that said the FDA does not have a right to prevent a drug company from disseminating scientific studies that are technically true but misleading. So if there have been four studies and one of them is positive, the company can distribute the one positive study with their marketing materials and not mention the other three. That's my recollection of the holding anyway.

It was actually a first amendment case...they are on more solid ground policing false statements, although it may take them a while to figure out something is patently false. Also, even with our stringent drug approval process, it may take decades until all of the longer term side effects of a drug are known. I am not an expert on this but I know I've been on at least two previously popular drugs that were pulled from the market for causing fatal arrhythmias.

None of this is to say people shouldn't take Truvada or that the FDA doesn't do the best job they can. But don't expect you can know everything about a drug from reading even all of the literature now available on it.

For all of you that are claiming that Gilead is marketing the drug, publishing biased studies, misleading the public, ETC: They didn't write or fund these studies!!!!


Truvada is NOT a new drug. It was never intended to be used as a preventative measure for HIV infection. It was developed and has been used as part of the cocktail of HIV antiretroviral therapies for over twelve years now.

Not only wasn't Truvada ever intended to be used as a preventative measure, it is NOT by itself, over any extended period of time, an effective preventative measure against the spread of HIV. Even if you're on Truvada, PLEASE USE A CONDOM TOO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Not only wasn't Truvada ever intended to be used as a preventative measure, it is NOT by itself, over any extended period of time, an effective preventative measure against the spread of HIV. Even if you're on Truvada, PLEASE USE A CONDOM TOO.

---

Well said. I couldn't say it better myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Not only wasn't Truvada ever intended to be used as a preventative measure, it is NOT by itself, over any extended period of time, an effective preventative measure against the spread of HIV. Even if you're on Truvada, PLEASE USE A CONDOM TOO.

---

THIS IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Truvada is 1. More effective than condoms 2. Condoms are not needed in concurrence with Truvada in order to be effective.


THIS IS A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE MIRACE DRUG!!!!!!!!! GET ON IT

I think the main point in this thread is that whatever you do, consider it carefully. Do not simply listen to Westheangelino, who will literally say anything to promote condom-less sex.

Whenever a drug has a new use, the risks associated with that use change. A drug that is administered acutely for a month may have different risks than one that is administered once daily for life.So your claim that Truvada has been around for twelve years and everything is known about it doesn't make much sense to me. I'll give you a few examples of drugs whose safety depended on their safe administration, which was only known years after they were initially marketed. Bupropion is perfectly safe at certain doses, but was pulled from the market because it caused seizures at the initial doses it was given at. It was then re-marketed at safe, non-seizure inducing doses. Monoamine oxidase inhibitors are reasonably safe when taken with a restricted diet, but were initially pulled from the market for killing people via serotonin syndrome and hyperpyretic crisis. Seldane I think was on the market for nearly ten years before it was pulled from the market for causing fatal arrhythmias. I'm sure the list goes on and on. But you're certain about the safety of Truvada taken daily for the rest of your life?

Again, I'm not saying it's the wrong choice for everyone. I just doubt all of the risks are known.