as an add on to condoms I agree... but not as a substitute
Printable View
as an add on to condoms I agree... but not as a substitute
Why are poppers stupid when used with restraint?
^ They aren't anymore stupid than booze or a joint.
I agree. Some caution is warranted, but... At this point it seems like it is a real additional prevention option for a lot of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
I think cost is really the biggest issue preventing widespread adoption right now. $14k a year is a lot. I'm just wondering if more people buying it will enable the cost to go down...
Because, if people are careless to not use a condom, what make you think they'll use this. Just be smart and stay safe. And if your partner doesn't like condoms, then you should rethink your partners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
^ Read any of the articles I've posted, and cost really isn't an issue. Just this week, Andrew Cuomo of NY came out preaching the Truvada gospel. Medicaid is covering this as are most private health insurers (benefits them as it's far cheaper than providing meds after someone is already POZ).
1. Condoms suckQuote:
Originally Posted by datguy69
2. Condoms are not sexy
3. Condoms do not feel good
4. Condoms are NOT as effective as properly taken Truvada
5. Condom usage campaigns have failed to halt the spread of HIV among men who have sex with men
Would you use the same argument against the birth control pill?
Ok. Here's the thing.
What if there were a pill that let you blow the legal limit in a breathalyzer but still be shitface drunk? Would you be applauding that? NO. Because you KNOW drunk driving accidents (and other alcohol related crimes) would skyrocket right?
Well, JUST taking this pill as your excuse to bareback freely,is pretty much the same thing.
You take this pill and think you can just avoid condoms permanently....which opens you up to OTHER diseases.
FYI There has been a cure for years, since the epidemic, they not going to release it. Yes we are not in the 80s anymore, where alone 40,000+ people died in SF from AIDS. But I wouldnt want to take this drug in order to have bareback sex, or what not. I have been sexually active (anal sex) since I was real young. In my 34 years of life, I have had scares but for most part have been safe. I also was in a relationship with an HIV+ person for 2 years, and I am still negative. I rather take safe sex over a pill. Sorry, I hate taking my hormones, how the fuck I wanna take a magic pill so I can have bareback sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaos
That is the weakest analogy I have yet heard. If you took a pill that let you blow the legal limit, that would mean that it made you NOT DRUNK, since the breathalizer analyzes your blood alcohol level. So, it would eliminate your impairment. Basically, you just made an affirmative argument for what I'm saying. YES I would take a drug that made me sober while I was driving home after a night of heavy drinking. YES I would take a drug that eliminated the risk of me contracting HIV after a night of bareback sex. WHAT IS YOUR POINT???????
As for other diseases, they are all curable and (please reference the latest article I posted), this drug also reduces the risk of genital herpes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Being a bit disingenuous there.....
1. In your opinion.
2. In your opinion.
3. In your opinion.
4. That's opening a whole other can of worms.
5. Condom usage campaigns have failed to halt the spread of HIV among men who have sex
:shrug
^ Clearly if those were just my opinions, then we wouldn't have the current state of affairs.
And why the alternation of number 5? Over half of all new HIV infections in this country are among men who have sex with men. This is the group that needs the help and all resources available to them.
yep... adding Truvada, not using it instead of Condoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
lol WHAT?!?! As a species we are suppose to learn from the mistakes we made in the past in order to grow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Implying that nearly half of all new infections in this (actually 'your') country are among men who have sex with women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
What makes your group special? :shrug
You knew exactly what I meant by my statement. Jackass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
That's simply a false statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaos
I understood the point you were trying to make. Your point just happened to be completely illogical.
At best the argument you were trying to make sounds like the people who were freaking out about weed being legalized in Colorado.
Please, explain how that's a false statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Do the math! :shrug
Let me just make sure that I understand what you were trying to say: you're saying that the other half of new HIV cases are men who have sex with women? Less than one percent of all reported HIV cases are self reported as "men who ONLY have sex with women". It is virtually unheard of in this country for a woman to infect a man with HIV. Throw all the tomatoes you want, but this is a cold, hard fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
HIV is a GAY disease in this country. This is the largest group affected and the only group where we have not made strides to reduce infection rates.
Just a quick question: do all of the detractors of truvada also agree that heroin addicts should not be provided with free, clean syringes? I mean, just DON'T use heroin and you won't get HIV. All well and good, but in the parts of this country where clean needle programs are in place, HIV infections have been significantly reduced among another group disproportionately affected by the scourge of HIV.
Yeah, you keep chucking up those strawman arguments, that'' convince us! :shrug
Let's get this straight wes. You advocate bareback sex proving you are taking truvada... Unlike your earlier enthusiastic advocacy of bareback before the advent of truvada?
^ There is a difference between proclaiming a personal preference and "advocacy". I AM an advocate of people taking truvada because it is an extremely effective tool against HIV. What one does after that is their choice and business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
That is my whole point
Men who have sex, not men who have sex, with whomever.
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/...a-gay-disease/
You're missing the point. Please read this article. Dan Savage has also come out saying the same thing.
Men who have sex with men are 44 to 86 times more likely to contract HIV in the USA. That means gay men, bisexual men, and TS AND THEIR ADMIRERS!!! Believe what you want, but the AIDS industry have done a great job making people think that this disease doesn't discriminate. It does.
A good read here to open your eyes:
http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-...01/statistics/
If i put it in CAPITAL LETTERS does it have more veracity?
^Nope. Just wanted to make sure it stood out since continually in this thread it appears that respondents are simply spouting off what comes to mind instead of actually reading what I'm posting.
Have you ever for one nanosecond considered that what you're posting is shite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
I don't give a shit, stock's up 3%
So, I can see how someone could say what I, myself, is saying is shite. After all, I am some jerk off on a message board just like all of you. But, are you also saying that new recommendations from the CDC, the WHO, the State of New York, the state of Michigan, etc. are also shite. If so, please elaborate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
The thing I don't like about the product is that on the Truvada website one of their main target audience are people with partners they know have HIV. This comes off as extremely shady to me that they would even suggest doing this when encouraging people to have "safe sex".
Truvada has been proven to not be 100% effective. I've seen studies that range from 75%-90% effectiveness from different sources. Those are terrible percentages when you're talking about someones life. The fact that they would even try to sell this to people who have partners with HIV is only encouraging them to have sex. Ultimately sooner or later they will get HIV too. So to be completely honest it all comes down to the money for them.
Truvada also does not destroy the virus. It only "makes it harder" for the virus to multiply, the rest is up to your body.
As said multiple times before this post it is also very hard on your liver. The fact that they won't issue this to you if you had any liver problems in the past or are taking any medicine that's harmful to your liver means it can't be good for you.
One of the main things I really don't like about this drug is that a lot of people think it's a safe sex pill.
1. It doesn't protect you from HIV (it really doesn't at all. It slows down the multiplying of HIV and your immune system does the rest if you're lucky).
2. There are dozens of other sex diseases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilyRox
OMG. I hate to use that acronym, but what you're saying is complete BS.
If taken every. single. day, Truvada is 99% effective. MORE effective than a condom. Do you think that a someone who is negative and in an LTR with someone POZ is going to forget to take their pill or be so careless? What do you suggest for that POZ person? Just use ONLY a less effective means of not infecting their partner or just be celibate forever?
Truvada absolutely DOES protect you from HIV. Period. It is difficult to contract HIV as it is, usually requiring multiple exposures. The drug works because it keeps HIV from gaining a foothold in your body, and it gets flushed out along with the other myriad pathogens our body comes across every single day. How do you think vaccines work? Polio, measles, etc. are always present. If you dont believe me look at the rise of these "dead" diseases in communities that are on the anti-vaccine bandwagon. It's ok to disagree with people who want to bareback only and not use condoms. I get it. It is NOT ok to just spout things that are NOT true.
Yes, there are dozens of other STD's. NONE OF THOSE CAN KILL YOU. And clearly you haven't read the articles I've posted about how new studies show that truvada reduces risk to HPV and Herpes.
Ill say it again, this is stupid as fuck! I had a partner who was HIV+ for two years, we had a great sex life, just with condoms. I am to this day still negative. So condoms are more effective then the BS u keep spewing on here.
how can hiv penetrate latex?Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
I can't speak to your sex life. I can only speak to statistics. You could have taken truvada daily and also been negative today. What is your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by TSMichelleAustin
The long term effects are worse for healthy individuals from clinical research. Obama care is a solution??? It is each of of our own responsibilities to prevent this from growing out of proportion, and being the next generations responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subbottom
So, we should try a condoms only strategy that has plateaued and let people continue to become infected? That makes no sense. How quickly would this have been adopted in the 80's or 90's? Think about it.
westheangelino: have you considered contacting truvada's marketing team? you'd make a great spokesman for them.
in fact, you could use your avatar and photoshop to make it look like you're holding a blue pill, then at the bottom you can write "if you're going to take one pill this year, make it this one... it will save your life"
i'd also include your signature at the title of "former heavy popper user"