Printable View
I have actually read all your articles and no I have never seen one that countered the NYT's article. You keep claiming there is one. If you are referring the article in the advocate, that did not address the issues found in the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Trish, I think you're right. Maybe he is getting paid to advertise, lol.
Of course they do. You can treat each year as an independent event. The risk for each single year is the same as any other year, but if you intend to use it over an extended period of time, the risk is higher for that projected period of use.Quote:
If you take lipitor for an extended period of time, your odds of a heart attack don't increase.
Yes they do, and for the same reason. If you intend to use the pill for an extended period time, the probability of getting pregnant over that projected period is higher than the probability of getting pregnant say this year if you're on the pill.Quote:
If you take the birth control pill, your odds of having a baby don't increase over time either.
No, you don't understand; and yet you're here giving everyone advice. I wouldn't care if you weren't advising people to be reckless. Nothing wrong with using Truvada and condoms, as long as you're aware of the risks associated with Truvada and keep an eye out for symptoms.Quote:
You clearly don't understand how medications work.
Plenty of people get paid for shilling products on internet forums. You wouldn't be the first.Quote:
And really? You think I'm getting paid for this? What a horrible marketing strategy that would be!
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
YOUR CHANCES OF GETTING PREGNANT OVER TIME DO NOT INCREASE WHILE ON THE PILL
Year number five is no different than year number two while on the pill. Stop spouting nonsense.
In any case, these things aren't even comparable! If enough HIV + people are in treatment (and people on ARV treatment do NOT pass on HIV), and enough neg people are on Truvada then we can end HIV as a real risk within the decade. Free your mind. Your ass will follow
Of course year five is no different than year two. But what counts is the projected period of use. This is especially true when one's health is at stake. Over a twenty year period Truvada is 82% effective, not 99%.
If Truvada can end HIV as a real risk in a decade, then HIV in tandem with condoms will do even better. Free your mind. Your ass will follow.
Here's a little something to open your eyes.....
http://betablog.org/51-new-hiv-infec...x-study-finds/
Refutes not a thing I've been saying.
If everyone (or the vast majority) used Truvada, then more than 50% of all new HIV infections would be the result of the failure of Truvada to prevent the infection. The study merely attests to the popularity of condom use. It also demonstrates the good sense behind not depending on one single kind of preventive measure. Don't just rely on condoms. Likewise, don't just rely on Truvada.
I am starting to think you are making money promoting this product. When I read an article I go to the actual study. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0107540Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Sometimes I wonder if people actually read what the study says. It is probably guess on limited factors. Its a mathematical model based on the assumption. I don't know if you read any scientific articles before, but you always read how the study is done. They never asked anyone just ran the numbers. Investigative research in the medical field yields the best results. For example http://www.aidsmap.com/Condom-effica.../page/1324955/.
At this point, you are going to keep pushing the drug. I pray and hope that I can be wrong, however I suspect I am not about the effectiveness. Like I said this won't be the first time a drug being pushed was as effective as they stated. Yes, they can be sued, but the money made from the drug will cover it.
Look West if you want to gamble on Truvada go ahead. I am not taking a gamble on my life. Truvada with condoms might give a great protection. But I believe through your own statement, you don't have to worry about condoms you really are going to risk heavy. Truvada alone is not good. And we never talked about the side effects.
Anyways, I just wanted to people to be aware of the risk they are taking.
I rather wait and see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
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.
Let’s take the promotor’s word for it that the effectiveness of Truvada is 99%. This means that if you use the product as directed for a period of one year, then the probability that you will be infected during that period of use is one chance in a hundred; i.e. 1%. Already you can see this is going to vary from individual to individual and region to region because different people are prone to different behaviors and some locales are hotter than others in regards to HIV. But we’ll continue to go with the promotor’s numbers; i.e. 99% effectiveness over a year’s use.
So what then is the probability of getting infected if you intend to use Truvada as directed for a period of five years? Easy. It’s the complement of the probability of not getting infected over that period, which is the product of the probability of not getting infect the first, second, third, fourth and fifth years: i.e. 1 - (.99)(.99)(.99)(.99)(.99) = 0.049. That about a 5% chance.
Okay, so what if you are 30 years old and your life-partner is infected with HIV. You plan to spend your life with this individual. You imagine you might be having sex with him at least into your sixties. So if you use Truvada over the next 30 years as directed, can you calculate now the probability that you’ll get infected at some point within the next thirty years? Yes, you can. It’s just 1-(.99)^30 = 0.26; i.e. a 26% chance. We can say that the effectiveness of Truvada over a 30 year period is 74%. See why you might want to use condoms as a second line of defense?
Suppose you had a revolver with an enormous cylinder that can hold one hundred bullets. Suppose further that all the chambers are empty except one. Each year on your birthday you spin the cylinder, point the pistol at your head and pull the trigger. Each year there’s a 99% probability of surviving your birthday. But if you’re thirty years old, the probability that you’ll live to see sixty is 74%. Wanna play?
Sure you might survive. Suppose there are 100 people who play this game. You might survive the first decade. But somewhere around 9 or 10 of your fellow players won’t. Your probability of surviving the next two decades is about 82%. That’s better than 74% because you already survived one decade and only have two more to go. You might even make it to your fiftieth birthday. If you do you’ll be one of about 82 survivors. Given the fact that you made to your fiftieth birthday, the probability of seeing your sixtieth is now better than 90%. Pretty good. If you make it to your sixtieth birthday you will be one of about 74 survivors. Congratulations. The game is obviously in your favor. But it’s also a game you obviously don’t want to play if you don’t have to. If you do have to (love can make you do many strange things) maybe you want to do something to increase your odds. Plug the barrel of the gun with cement. Turn on the safety and solder it in place. Put a condom over the barrel. Anything.
Yes, yes...the Russian roulette metaphor is a bit harsh because HIV infection is not an immediate death sentence. But that’s beside the point. The probabilities are the point.
Some studies suggest that condom’s alone can be 90% to 95% effective against the spread of HIV infection over a period of one year’s use. Let compromise and say it’s 92.5% effective against the transmission of HIV over one year’s use. It seems likely (to me) that condom failure and “Truvada failure” would be independent events. If so, given that you both use a condom and take Truvada as directed, then the probability of getting infected within one year is (0.075)(0.01) = 0.00075. Hence the effectiveness of the combo is 0.9995 (over a one year period). What’s the probability of getting an infection within the next thirty years if you use the combo? Easy 1-.9995^30 = 0.015. So the probability of not getting infected sometime within the next thirty years is 0.985; i.e. the effectiveness of the combo over a thirty year period is 98.5%.
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
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 Westheangelino
Bingo. Bronco gets what Trish and I was getting at.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
(I just want to know how much West is getting paid, because I want in.)
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 Westheangelino
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamon
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.
Well said. I couldn't say it better myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
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.
No, it’s mathematics using your numbers. Please see post and answer post 290 http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=290Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
This may be true. My argument grants that it is 99% effective (the number you posted).Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
If you’re happy with only a 74% chance of not getting infected within the next three decades, then yes...you won’t need to use condoms with truvada.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
If for any extended period of time you expect to be engaging in behaviors where the effectiveness of truvada in preventing HIV infection is the advertised 99%/yr and you do not plan to supplement that protection then you will be putting your life and your health at serious risk: The probability that you won’t get infected by year N is (0.99) to the Nth power; i.e. (0.99)^N. The probability of getting infected with HIV by year N is (1-(0.99)^N).
On the other hand, assume the effectiveness of condoms is only 90%/yr. If you use condoms with truvada, then the probability getting infected the first year is the equal to the probability that both independent methods of prevention fail, namely (1-.99)(1-.9). So the effectiveness of the combo (condoms and truvada) is (1 - (1-.99)(1-.90)) 100% = 99.9%. The probability of getting infected by year N is therefore (1-(0.999)^N).
Using truvada alone, the probability that you will get infected sometime over the next 30 years is (1-(0.99)^30) = 0.2603.
Using truvada with condoms the probability that you will get infected sometime over the next 30 years is (1 - (0.999)^30) = 0.0296.
Below is a chart that compares the expected number of HIV infections between a group of 100 people who use truvada alone and a group of 100 who use condoms with truvada.
It may be the case that in the future truvada will be proven to be more than 99% effective over one year's use. In that case I'll revise the model. Perhaps I'm interpreting the reported effectiveness incorrectly (we already saw in this thread the difficulty in obtaining precise definitions of the published numbers). If nothing else, I think this comparison illustrates how well even a less effective supplementary preventative measure can amplify the effectiveness of your primary choice of prevention. WHATEVER ELSE YOU USE, USE A CONDOM, PLEASE.
While I appreciate the time you used to draw a graph, it is still doesn't change the fact that you don't understand how medications work or how their efficacy is gauged.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The initial study was over 18 months. When blood levels showed that Truvada was being taken at least five times a week NOT ONE PERSON BECAME POSITIVE. Guess who did? THE PEOPLE WHO DIDNT TAKE THE PILL!!!!
Wes, of all the people who regularly post here Trish is probably least likely to not understand something.
Perhaps I don't understand. Still I think the analysis I gave illustrates how well even a less effective supplementary preventative measure can amplify the effectiveness of your primary choice of prevention. Surely you don't believe that two people who expose themselves for different lengths of time take equal risks provided they're on truvada, do you? You're the one who said the effectiveness of truvada was 99%. Starting with your number and the assumption that you're only going to use travada with no other preventative measures, teach me how YOU calculate the probability of getting infected by year N.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Your body will build a resistance to any medication taken over a certain duration Furthermore the problem I find with Truvada is the initial statistical number of 99% effectives was a estimation of test participants taking the medication semi-properly over the designated period of time. Trish is right with the decrease of effectiveness. Comdons bare no substantial weakness over a period of time, because it is not a chemical agent, but a physical barrier.
Furthermore, the study was improperly concluded. The medication was not monitored under the ideal situation at should have been. The sample size of those who properly took the medication was almost non-existent. Instead they assume it would be more effective if a person had a large dose. The problem is the drug has traditional been given with other medication. It was never given solely as a treatment for HIV. So here you have a drug that researchers have not determine the effectiveness of the drug by itself. Simply put in a medical study you want to see the medication act under the ideal situation.
So you can believe its 99% effective, but in reality it will far less effective. It was poor study hence I would recommend proceeding with caution. For what I have glean from the many forums about people taking Truvada, they are treating it as an alternative for condoms. That in of itself maybe troublesome since the Truvada is not as effective. Truvada and condoms will provide excellent protection.
I am waiting to see those who are using Truvada exercise caution and care in choosing sexual situations that presents low risk. I think that in of itself will be a big determining factor for the perception and care of those who use Truvada. My fear is people really think this alone is all you need.
^ And what of the studies with serodiscordant couples? Not one on Truvada came up positive.
Truvada IS a replacement for condoms and will stop the HIV epidemic IF ONLY MORE PEOPLE KNEW ABOUT IT.
Also, you say the sample size was nearly nonexistent? How many does it take to be existent?
No its not, with that thinking you'll replace an HIV epidemic with a herpes, warts, gonorrhoea, hepatitis epidemic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Truvada does sound and could be a wonder drug but only in conjunction with condoms, not as a replacement to condoms.
^ Condoms are not effective against herpes, warts, or hepatitis. Just so you know
In your opinion they are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
In mine they are, they wont 100% help but they do improve your odds so that is a good thing. Not using a condom only increases your odds of catching something so be sensible and use one in conjunction with truvada then your pretty much protected from HIV and from other STI's. Using truvada just on its own and wow you got a degree of protection from HIV but no assistance for protection from other STI's
http://www.sfgate.com/health/article...es-3650285.php
It's not my opinion. None of these statements are opinions.
“We know that uptake of PrEP among men who have sex with men (MSM) has been limited, partly due to misinformation in the community about its safety and effectiveness."
http://www.metroweekly.com/2014/10/h...vada-for-prep/
And the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT org in the country, just endorsed Truvada. BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE!!!!
If they aren't marketing their drug, they're doing it completely wrong. As a for-profit organization, and one that is publicly traded at that, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to turn a profit. If they aren't actively marketing their products to increase sales, they're doing their shareholders an active disservice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Wes, this is your claim that the effectiveness of truvada is 99% ->
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=262
These are simple calculations comparing the expected performance of truvada alone and truvada with condoms over various periods of time.->
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=290
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=301
These calculations use ordinary elementary probability theory treating each year of use as an independent experiment. If this approach is in error please explain exactly why and provide your own calculation so that your readers understand precisely how to interpret and use your notion of 99% effective. In particular how do YOU calculate the probability of infection by year 10? Year 20? Year 30? Etc.->
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=304
trish dont bother anymore, he hates condoms and doesnt want to be stigmatized about his status
We are going to know if 5 years the effectiveness of the drug. I fear this will lead to higher risk sexual activities with higher transmissions, because many people are under the assumption this drug will end HIV transmission if everyone is on it. It happens more than people know the selling of drugs that do not perform as prescribed. I would recommend caution, but I guess to some people my words are like grabbing after the wind, completely useless. Be safe folks.
people are already under the impression that ARVs are multivitamins
This thread is still going on? U guys it doesnt matter what u say to him, he doesnt care to hear or listen.
Condoms do work, I was in a relationship with HIV+ person for 3 years and we had lots of sex just with condoms. If theory goes to what he is claiming condoms dont work, I would be positive as well. So, I rather have a rubber than some pill to keep my life healthy.
I'd love to know what you know about me.....last time I checked (quite recently) I was negative. Are you saying I'm POZ? If so, please directly say so.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBest
Michelle, I applaud your exemplary past use of condoms. You happen to be an outlier. I never said condoms were not effective when used properly. They are. The problem is that people won't or can't use them for various reasons, and Truvada is the answer.
I know you think that you're a "Fit, smart, bottom guy who knows what I want," and that you're "Looking for an awesome tgirl to hang with and go from there." Good luck with that. I hope she uses condoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
She never implied you were poz. She only said that it has been a proven form of protection. You have been arguing condoms are not effective, hence the need for her statement. Now I am curious to hear the won't or can't reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino