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
Westtheangelo.
This is a genuine question and not a dig.
If you were given the choice to take a vaccine which needed to be a pill taken daily, which would allow you to have unprotected sex, with as many people as you wish and never catch an STD - but the trade off was that it would end your life earlier.
What would the trade be?
5 yrs or less?
10 yrs?
20 yrs?
(let's assume you'd be living an average lifespan and normal healthy life)
I figure my generation (current 20 to 35 yr olds) will live to at least 80. So, I think 10 years would be fair.
PLEASE NOTE: there is no evidence to suggest that Truvada will shorten your lifespan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Thanks.
No evidence it won't either :-)
It would be interesting to ask again at 70 ...
Actually, a mountain of evidence that it won't shorten your life span. You know what does though? Being HIV positive. You know what prevents that? A little blue miracle pill called Truvada. Take a screenshot of this thread. Let's see where the discussion is in 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobySteven
I haven't read the scientific evidence on it, and I've no interest in doing so. Something I would assume though, that it hasn't had 10-20 yr trials. I'm not wanting to get into an argument with you, just wondering what your trade-off would have been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobySteven
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobySteven
I love a good hypothetical, but people are going to die because of the opinions of people who want to "wait and see" or worse yet, plant the seed in people's brains that this drug is somehow harmful or ineffective.
Or people will die because they're take this drug not knowing the future side-effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Thalidomide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rofecoxib - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is why people aren't taking you seriously, you're EVANGELISTIC about this drug. I'm not saying it's bad - but history shows that taking any drug daily over a long period of time MAY have future repercussions.
It's a personal choice ... I choose to drink probably a bit more than I should and smoke cigars knowing that there is potential of what they can do to my health, down the line. I also choose to eat as little processed food, dairy and no fast food if at all possible, while taking good meats and lots of fruit veg. as based on the evidence these are better. That's my personal choice on how to live my life and I'm prepared to accept that balance.
Your personal choice may be to take a drug which allows you to get poked in the arse with as many cocks as humanely possible while not having to worry about HIV. You simply don't know the downside to that drug yet - but you need to be realistic that it could be there - and that's your choice.
^ People have been taking this drug in megadoses for 12 years now! The dose needed for HIV prevention is much much lower. I will agree with you completely that I am evangelistic. I don't want one more person to die from HIV simply because they didn't know this existed or thought it wouldn't work. Please, understand that I'm speaking out in a world where there AIDS Healthcare Foundation (with it's nearly billion dollar a year operating budget) tried to stop the CDC from endorsing this drug for HIV prevention.
Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but here goes...
So if one has had BB sex with someone who is HIV Pos, the virus does get into the body and stays there. Taking Truvada will suppress the virus from activating /spreading but it still needs to be taken every day?
Is this correct?
Google and ye shall find.Quote:
Originally Posted by tao1kiku
But short answer: HIV enters your body but cannot attach to your cells and replicate. Thus is never gains a foothold and is flushed out with all the other viruses and bacteria we are exposed to on the daily. It does not lie dormant waiting for you to skip a pill as someone else has suggested. Please also keep in mind that if you've gone to the trouble to take Truvada, I'm pretty sure your POZ partner is informed enough to be on HIV medication, which includes Truvada to suppress already present HIV. These medications, in most cases, lower their viral load (the amount of HIV present in their body) to undetectable or near undetectable amounts, which means they are relatively non infectious.
^ Sorry, thought you meant with the same person every day over time. Which is usually how people get HIV, not through one random hookup.
i am not sure that's accurate. at least in the porn world, all of the pos cases have been single exposures through receiving anal creampies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christianxxx
Totally different discussion, but I've always been curious. How many cases is that? Is that ever really verifiable? Can we be certain that it wasn't off set behavior?
Christian, would you be in favor of studios requiring a Truvada scrip for all their performers while still maintaining the rigorous testing regimen?
^ And to be clear, I wasn't saying that single exposure HIV never happens, but statistically speaking it's far less common than taking multiple exposures in short windows of time whether that be with the same partner or a multitude of partners. We have just been conditioned to believe that that one slip up most people have had is the path to disaster.
Infection does not require multiple exposures. It happens once. Multiple exposure merely increases the chance of contracting HIV.
much like Steven, i would need to look at the long term effects first, but I am generally in favor of Truvada yes.
as for the pos HIV in porn, since 2000 -
Marc Wallice contracted it from an unknown source but most likey an infected drug needle. He gave it to 8 or 9 girls who all contracted it from him during anal creampie gangbangs and scenes (including Tricia Devereaux).
John Stagliano contracted it in Brazil and by his own admission he got a violent anal creampie from a crossdressing streetwalker. (he is now married to Tricia and they have 2 non HIV children).
Darren James contracted it in Brazil as well through unknown origins. He also gave it to 5 different females during anal creampie gangbangs
Since then there have been 0 infections on set...but:
Cameron Reed showed up positive in 2010 and he contracted it privately as a gay escort and bottom (it should be noted his girlfriend at the time worked a lot in the biz and caused a large number of male performers to be quarantined)
last year Cameron Bay and her boyfriend Rod Daily also came up HIV positive through unknown origins although both are admitted drug addicts and Rod is a known gay escort.
Additionally, their close friend Sofia Delgado also tested positive after she was quarantined, but she never did any porn scenes. How she contracted it is speculation but it's believed to be from contact with Cameron Bay & Rod Daily.
Last November TJ Cummings tested positive for HIV. Although being a straight porn performer, he admitted to seeing men & TS privately and often bottoming.
That is the entirety of the straight porn HIV positive list from 2000 to today.
^ When was the NAAT test introduced as a standard as opposed to the traditional elisa, blot, etc. that required 30 days at least to pick up antibodies?
i know in 2002 we were already using pcr-dna
how about abstaining from risky behaviors? and being smart with your sexual health?
My point is, over and over u have said condoms dont prevent safety in sex. And I am proven fact it has and does. Why would I want to take a pill for rest of my life so I can bareback god knows who? I am happy being negative and I am happy with my sex life with condoms. It has worked for me in my sex life. So my point is, u keep ranting condoms dont work, and I said it does. Because if didnt, id be positive now. Condoms saved my life, not some pill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
So, taking a pill that when taken correctly reduces your risk of contracting HIV by 99% isn't a smart thing to do regarding one's sexual health?Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamon
That's fantastic, and I'm really glad that you found something that worked for you. The reality is though, that you're an outlier on the statistical scale. If someone and their partner are able to adhere to condom usage 100% of the time, and are ok with the risk of one breaking, then go for it! But this is another option in the war on HIV, which clearly needs all the weapons it can get based on statistics in the real world.Quote:
Originally Posted by TSMichelleAustin
Wes... why don't you just leave the topc here. You've been banging on about it for weeks. Peple are either persuaded or not.
Wes --- getting tiresome buddy. Why not just rest your case
Merged two threads
^ Because people are going to die unless they know their options. This might be acceptable to you, but it is unimaginable to me.
Plus, new news comes out every day about this wonder drug. So, I won't stop shouting this from the rooftops.
I also love how we can have endless versions of the following: Who is this Girl? Am I Gay????!!!! First Time Bottom. Remember GG's? Etc.... but two threads discussing a lifesaving miracle drug need to be merged into one?
Yes - because they cover exactly the same topic and they virtually all posted by you, Wes....
So, out of interest, how long have you been taking it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
^ Not on it yet. Trying to find the right insurance plan or the right clinic to get it for free. Admittedly I haven't been trying very hard since I found out about truvada as my sex life hasn't been very anally centered lately, but 'tis the season now.