http://www.advocate.com/31-days-prep
^Some highly informative stuff
Printable View
http://www.advocate.com/31-days-prep
^Some highly informative stuff
Wes, are we protected if others take this, or only if we do?
^ This is an interesting question, and the answer on a purely scientific level is both. On a real life level, I'd say the answer is, "not on your life!" Allow me to elaborate.....
So, given that the pill keeps one from contracting HIV, the short answer is yes. It's a simple equation that if your partner is negative on on PrEP, then they will not become infected, thus you will not become infected. It's not as though someone can be negative, on prep, and carry the virus around like a carrier. Just doesn't work that way.
Now, let's take a trip to the real world. Letting someone fuck you sideways if you aren't on PrEP simply because they SAY they are is maybe even more foolish than people who have barebacked until now because their partner claims to be negative, etc. The great thing about this drug is that the owness is solely on ONE person to control their health. With condoms it's always a two person conversation.
any chance of bugs developing resistance?
Antibiotics worked fine until they didn't, and now we have the SuperClap™-
Well, I don't have the SuperClap™. Some folks do, but not me.
Nope.
That's some fucked up shit, though.
SuperClap™.
^ While this is ALWAYS a chance that something can develop drug immunity, this seems unlikely with Truvada. First off, in ten years, it probably will not be the same drug, as Gilead is already working on different formulations and different delivery methods (think once every six month injections). Also, people who are HIV+ have been taking this very drug for over a decade, and it's through them that the researchers figured out that it could be used as prevention as well. So far, there has been no evidence of a patient losing efficacy who is already HIV +.
Also, let's consider the concept of herd immunity, which could be a real thing with something like the HIV virus, which is much less communicable than say Chylmidia or Syphallis. Men who have sex with men make up 2% of the US population, but represent 52% of all persons living with HIV and 63% of new infections.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...t-of-HIV-Cases
So, just think if even half of us took Truvada. The sharp decrease would be astronomical and nothing short of a miracle.
So probably another SuperClap™.
Is this covered under ACA?
^ Um....NO probably not another Superclap. Did you actually read what I wrote?
And, yes, most major insurers are covering this as are state run medicaid agencies. One of the knocks on this drug is that its cost is prohibitive. BUT that is simply not true. Think about it: it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe millions as people live longer) to cover HIV+ people (which now has to be done thanks to Obamacare), but fraction to keep people HIV- through PrEP. THANK YOU OBAMA!!!!!
Fixed that for you. I bet something develops though- I'll watch the real world trials with interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
I just can't see going pharmaceutical unless I have to for some reason. Like a "life depends on this" kind of reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapatio
Ok. So, what are you sexual practices right now? What makes you even curious about this drug? Why do you bet something develops? What makes you think that way? You do understand that real world trials have already taken place right?
My interest is actually not in the drug, but in your insistence that we should take a maintenance drug.
It's fascinating. Maybe it's altruism, but it doesn't read that way.
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/23...google-com.htm
^Awesome news!
If "awesome" means: ALWAYS USE A CONDOM in tandem with any other adopted preventative measures.
^ That's certainly not what I meant ;)
why do you hate condoms so muchQuote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
^ That's like asking why someone hates Diet Coke
Seems like not many people here care but u about this. I dont think it will be as big as u think or wish.
^ Let's revisit this in five years. The fact is most people don't know about it
I don't get West, if there was an epidemic of condoms being unable to prevent HIV I could understand such a hard push. Condoms have been excellent and if person feels the need to bareback. Then its best in a committed monogamous relationship where both parties have been tested. Other than that this is being pushed for people who have a history of high risk sexual activities. With the side effects being liver damage, why is a person really taking this drug?
That is why Michelle is right, people won't care about it because there is not as much as a need for it as people think there should be one.
^ You can't actually be serious?
50,000 new HIV cases a year. Every year. In the USA. This isn't an epidemic????!!!!!!!!! Are you fucking insane???????????? Condoms, in perfect use, do prevent HIV. We've been at this for 30 years. A condoms only strategy to combating HIV simply DOES NOT WORK. If this drug had come out 20 years ago it would be heralded as a miracle.
You people make me fucking puke. You can choose to continue to live in denial if you want, but what makes me ill is that your Puritanical and unscientific judgmental attitudes are what's keeping more people from knowing about this miracle drug.
Truvda, in perfect use, doesn't prevent HIV either. The effectiveness of any preventative measure decreases exponentially over the duration of use. A drug that is 95% effective over one year's time is only 90% effective over a two year period. For a period of twenty years the effectiveness drops to 0.95 to the twentieth power; i.e. 36% effective over a twenty year period. If you're in a long term relationship with a partner who is infected, you'd be a fool not to use every preventative measure at your disposal that doesn't carry the risk of deleterious side-effects with long term use...that means CONDOMS.
I think where this product truly shines, and I believe this has been mentioned in some of the articles,...is in committed relationships where one partner has HIV.
The way I see it, if used with condoms, the negative partner really protects themselves even further...
...but I would understand if, in a long term loving relationship, the negative partner, especially if they were a top (lower risk), would be willing to take a chance with daily use of this pill alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapatio
Where are you getting this information???? With perfect use, Truvada is 99% effective. More than condoms when used perfectly, which almost never are used perfectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I don't have to bring up the whole article thing that clearly proved truvada research methods was poor. But show me that most of the HIV causes, wait in fact show me any facts where 10% of the people who have HIV is caused from condom failure when the parties are engaged in protective sexual activity. I am waiting West.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeisfiction
And you'll keep waiting. Where are you even getting this 10% number? It's certainly nothing I ever said. "Perfect" use doesn't even mean manufacturing error. It means not using the product as intended, not following directions, or only sometimes using it.
You're all missing the main benefits:
1. The drug, unlike condoms, doesn't reduce sexual pleasure. There are some people, myself included, who have always been willing to negotiate and quantify risk based on the fact that barebacking just feels better. Not saying it isn't risky. It is. But this is reality and will continue to be unless something else comes along.....now it has!
2. There is no heat of the moment mistake. You put a condom on a hard, pulsating cock. You take a truvada in the morning when you brush your teeth. See the difference?
3. The power is solely in the hands of the individual. How many cases of HIV have happened because of peer pressure? Lies? Empty promises? the closet? A LOT.
you dont want status & BB to be stigmatized/thread
by the way being poz doesnt mean you cant contract different strains
There it is, you can be safe using condoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
I know you enjoy bareback sex and like many people they feel condoms break the mood. However, they have proven over the years to provide excellent protection. Of course sex without a condom feels great, but not everyone is willing to risk such a venture. Especially with the scientific study conducted not being really sound.
Many people have a wait and see attitude, because if the drug is less effective than stated the consequences can be bad. Truvada is target at a high risk demographic. I feel the drug is being pushed too hard too fast, particularly as its being marketed as great preventer of HIV without a proper study. For me, I rather see how the drug operates in the actually world then relying on poor studies. If its good, then it provide options in my sex life.
Plus West, I think you are mistaken that the other STDs are nothing to worry about. STD's are becoming more resistant to antibiotics and some of them are very very difficult to cure or are incurable.
Like I said unless you are willing to engage in much more riskier sex, Truvada is not really a concern.
PS: If you are willing to take the risk, be prepared for the consequences.
Thanks Mr. Best, I forgot people who kept re-infecting themselves with HIV when they thought they could not get it again since they already have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBest
50,000 new infections speaks to the failure of condom only campaigns. Of course, I'm not knocking the crusaders of the past. From the early GRID days til the last two years, condoms were the only proven preventative measure. Times change. You wouldn't tell a woman taking the birth control pill to use a diaphram would you?Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeisfiction
When you engage in riskier activity it carries a higher risk. People who contract HIV are engaging in riskier sexual activities. If you want to have bareback sex, then in a monogamous relationship with both parties being tested prior to bareback sexual activity. Its safe. If however you wanted to sleep with multiple partners then its best to minimize the risk, because people lie and are dishonest. A more scary scenario are people who are willing to put other people's health at risk for their own pleasure. I can mention even scarier forms out there. Its best to take the precautions that keep you safe, however if you feel the riskier options provide a fuller sexual experience, just understand what you are engaging in.
If Truvada proves to be true and your only concern is getting HIV then its the drug for you. I do wish you caution, the drug has not been proven to be as effective. In the end only the pharmaceutical company producing it and promoting it doesn't have to live personally the consequence of HIV.
Nearly everything you just wrote is utter nonsense. You understand that thousands of people contract HIV every year while in "monogamous" relationships right?Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeisfiction
Most men don't want monogamous relationships. This is a fact no matter how much the mainstream gay agenda would have the straight world believe otherwise.
You keep saying "if" Truvada proves effective. It IS effective and has been proven so.
Really? People taking it are the only ones who stand to lose if Truvada proves inneffective? (which isn't going to happen anyways) For sake of argument, you don't think that Gilead, the drug's manufacturer, stands to face massive litigation should we see cases of people contracting HIV despite acceptable levels of the drug in their blood? (again, this won't happen, but just sake of argument).
dishonesty has nothing to do with it:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
why would they if theyre not marketing their drug like you areQuote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Well if you have to cheat don't take your partner down with you. So men hate monogamous relationships and women love monogamous relationships, well that would explain why I know personally of many married women cheating on their husbands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
If you are in a real monogamous relationship then it shouldn't be a problem. Honestly that is the worst logic I ever heard of to say everyone is cheating so you need to take it.
Lets state it again, you are not going to get HIV if you engage in proper safe sex with no incident. That's not going to happen. All you have done is say that my statement is incorrect on something you personally feel happens with no evidence to back it.
Most people get HIV through sexual contact have engaged in riskier sex. We all know that so its nothing new.
You know my position on this information and again you have never present an argument saying the New York Times article was inaccurate. I read through all the past posts and all the articles where before the NYT article and the one article you placed afterward did not counter the study.
Why would I even spend time arguing because I have seen people suffer from misinformation. West if you feel my argument is invalid, then ignore it. If people want to take the risk I cannot stop them. Sex is grand, but its not worth risking your life over it.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBest
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeisfiction
LIES. Go back a few pages. The follow up study came out after that NYT article.
Also, I am NOT proposing that every man, woman, and child take this. Neither do the CDC or WHO. They're saying that all sexually active MSM (men who have sex with men) take it. And, for their purposes that includes Tgirls and their admirers.
I will not be recommending this drug to any of my straight friends. BUT this is not that type of forum.
If you have the article, then post the link. I want to see which article you have that counters the NYTs article. Don't tell me to go back and read it. Just post it.
Given 99% effective over a one year period, Truvada is only 82% effective over a twenty year period. Where am I getting this? I'm doing the math. The risk of side-effects also rises exponentially with time of projected use. I'm not saying don't use Truvada. But beware of the risks and use condoms too...unless you don't give a damn about your own health.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Question: Why don't you participate in any of other discussions and threads in these forums? Do you regard yourself as a member of the HA community? What is your real interest here? There's little evidence that you care anything at all about this community and lot's of evidence that you're very interested in pushing Truvada. How much do you get paid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeisfiction
I'm not going to repost for a THIRD time. I don't have to give citations every time I post something that isn't new. Besides, you're not the person I'm trying to reach. You've clearly made up your mind and will interpret anything I post (even hard, verifiable numbers) to fit your view.
I'm trying to provide information on something that everyone should know about but few people do.
You clearly don't understand how medications work. If you take lipitor for an extended period of time, your odds of a heart attack don't increase. If you take the birth control pill, your odds of having a baby don't increase over time either.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
You do understand that you can search to see any and all posts someone has ever made right? So, go look at mine. I've read this board for over six years. You can imagine how someone will get bored seeing variations of the same exact thread over this time and thus won't comment on them right?
"Am I gay?"
"Who is this girl?"
"Who has the biggest dick?"
"Visting X city...what to do there?"
"Top or bottom?"
^80% of the threads on here are this. Which is totally fine! This is a great place to inform newbies. It just shocked me to learn about the drug myself and shocked me even more that we aren't all shouting off the roof tops about it!
And really? You think I'm getting paid for this? What a horrible marketing strategy that would be! LOL