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

I never said u were POZ! Read the fucking thing I said. I said, u dont listen or care to. I just stated that ur claim that condoms dont work is wrong!!! Its stupid to say condoms dont work, I know many Neg/Poz couples who have a healthy sex life with condoms and the one is still negative. I was just proving a point that you keep bringing up in here, that condoms are not effective and your wrong! Thats all! I never said u were poz, I could care less if you were or not, its none of my business because we are never fucking! And if we ever did it be condoms cuz I wouldnt trust all your barebacking ways!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lifeisfiction

She never implied you were poz.....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSMichelleAustin

I never said u were POZ! ..........

---

For the sake of accuracy...he was responding to this post - from MrBest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrBest

trish dont bother anymore, he hates condoms and doesnt want to be stigmatized about his status

---

...which was clearly stated in his reply quote...read it again. I like a heated debate...but I like things to remain accurate also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

For the sake of accuracy...he was responding to this post - from MrBest


...which was clearly stated in his reply quote...read it again. I like a heated debate...but I like things to remain accurate also.

---

Well I apologize for the assumption, I thought through my initial reading he was quoting Michelle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westheangelino

I'd love to know what you know about me.....

---

i know this isnt the only thread where you made anticondom posts

Westangelino is no different than all the right wing climate change deniers ...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...gay-men-us-nhs

A good British take on the issue

It is obvious that he enjoys sex without a condom and that he has been lucky so far.

But as others have said condoms do work 99.9 per cent of the time. I would still advise their use - even if you accompany that by taking Truvada.

Now he has found a way which suggest he has increased his safety in pursuing his preferred form of sex. IFine and dandy. But isn't going guarantee he will remain disease free - and there are other nasties lurking out there like Hep for instance.

Play safe folks - even if you add Truvada to your gameplan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westheangelino

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...gay-men-us-nhs

A good British take on the issue

---

Good article but it just repeats what we've all been saying to you on here, the fear that truvada will replace condoms altogether and lead to a explosion of STD's amongst the community.

"But as others have said condoms do work 99.9 per cent of the time. I would still advise their use - even if you accompany that by taking Truvada."


NO. THEY DON'T. Where on Earth did you get this stat?

so since condoms are not 100 per cent guaranteed you inveigh against their use westheangelino? That is a pretty dumb response.

The effectiveness of truvada is estimated by the CDC to be 92% over one year of high risk exposure (NOT the 99% that Wes advertises).

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/prep/

The chart below uses Wes's 99% effectiveness of truvada and also assumes only a 90% effectiveness for condoms. In this way it's biased for Wes's POV and yet it shows considerable regret for those who do not supplement their truvada use with condoms. The model uses elementary probability theory and treats each year's use as a independent experiment. Wes claims the model wrong but doesn't offer any detailed criticism other than "medications don't work like that". Tell us Wes, how do they work? How do YOU calculate the expected number of HIV transmissions using truvada alone over a ten year period...a twenty year period...etc.? How do YOU calculate the regret of not supplementing truvada use with condoms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

How do YOU calculate the expected number of HIV transmissions using truvada alone over a ten year period...a twenty year period...etc.? How do YOU calculate the regret of not supplementing truvada use with condoms?

---

He doesnt.

Because Truvada is so awesome, you dont need math, condoms or common sense...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrBest

trish dont bother anymore, he hates condoms and doesnt want to be stigmatized about his status

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teydyn

He doesnt.

Because Truvada is so awesome, you dont need math, condoms or common sense...

---

Use condoms if you want to. If this is a strategy that works for you and your partner(s) then go for it. I am not saying that condoms are not effective (when used perfectly). On an individual basis, they are. As a strategy to END not just stem the tide of an epidemic, they are NOT EFFECTIVE AS A STRATEGY. We have 50K new HIV infections in the US every single year.

Truvada's effectiveness (just like condoms) is measured on how well it's used. Trish, you can make any graph you want, but it doesn't illustrate anything. Even you have to admit these two things: the CDC numbers take into account whether or not someone is using the drug as directed or not and in published studies about serodiscordant couples, not ONE negative partner became positive when taking Truvada as directed.

And if you're not going to believe me (and, really, why should you? I'm just some wanker on a message board), perhaps you'll take stock in the opinions of the ACLU, the CDC, the WHO, the Governor of NY, and a myriad of AIDS activists and health professionals.


http://www.advocate.com/31-days-prep...t-support-prep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westheangelino

Use condoms if you want to. If this is a strategy that works for you and your partner(s) then go for it. I am not saying that condoms are not effective (when used perfectly). On an individual basis, they are. As a strategy to END not just stem the tide of an epidemic, they are NOT EFFECTIVE AS A STRATEGY. We have 50K new HIV infections in the US every single year.

---

How many of those 50,000 infections are due to condom failure?

Hey, side question- say you fulfilled Wes' fantasy and were taking the pill daily-


Would you have sex with someone you knew to be HIV positive?

I totally wouldn't.

No.

Fucking.

Way.

Truvada + Condoms seems to be the smart bet.

All the links wes and other people posted effectivenes vary's from 70 to 99%. Plus there are side effects for Truvada. And it is not the holy grail against H.I.V on a bad day you can still catch or give it. It comes down to the Swiss effect if you are in a commited relationship taking the medicine daily with food on a scheduled time, yes you can have bare sexs if you are not coming down with something . I am not saying condoms are 100% but to me they seem like a safer bet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamon

How many of those 50,000 infections are due to condom failure?

---

Or people who simply don't use condoms now that there is a widespread belief that HIV is a manageable chronic rather than fatal condition with the use of anti-retroviral drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Or people who simply don't use condoms now that there is a widespread belief that HIV is a manageable chronic rather than fatal condition with the use of anti-retroviral drugs.

---

HIV IS a manageable disease with proper treatment.


I have no idea how many of the 50K infections are due to condom failure. I would bet not many. I'm not saying condoms are not effective. I'm saying condoms have not been an effective strategy for ending the HIV epidemic.


As for the question about fucking a POZ person, I absolutely would, provided they were on treatment. Undetectable POZ patients do NOT pass on HIV. They are not infectious.

That last remark by westheangelino is irresponsible bollocks. Undetectable does NOT mean not infectious. Ask a doctor. It might make the risk lower but definitly does not mean they are not a risk.

As for HIV being manageable. yes. True. But they also say that in later life the chances of dying earlier from other infections is heightened. Plus HIV also has the ability to mutate. So drug treatments presently effective at controlling it may well not continue to work. Plus who wants to have to religiously take a tough regime of drugs - some of which have side effects - for the rest of their life for the pleasure of a few minutes of bareback sex.

Play safe. Use condoms and Truvada. Do NOT forsake the great degree of safety that the use of condoms provides.

Hi,

I'm taking truvada and kaletra after a possible exposure during oral...
The side effects aren't nice.. Not even sure I should be taking them to be fair but still, better safe than sorry...

Great thread though with good discussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westheangelino

Trish, you can make any graph you want, but it doesn't illustrate anything.

---

Yes, if I just drew any old graph I felt like drawing. But the chart I posted is constructed from the simple, well known algorithm for computing the expected number of failures in N independent runs of a random procedure with known probability of success. I explained the procedure here
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=290
and here
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=301

The chart illustrates over time the expected number of HIV transmissions for a group of one hundred people using truvada alone and compares that to the expected number of transmissions for a group of one hundred people using condoms along with truvada. Even if the effectiveness estimates are in error the chart demonstrates how well the supplementary use of condoms can reduce the risk of HIV transmission. The model assumes the group behaviors are such that 99% is the appropriate measure of truvada's effectiveness over a one year period and that 90% is the appropriate measure of the effectiveness of condom use over a one year period.

Each curve on the chart is labeled with the mathematical form of the model used to construct the curve so that anyone can independently derive the model and verify that the equation is correct.

Wes, after making the claim that the chart illustrates nothing, I expected you explain why that's the case. Instead you immediately follow your claim with...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westheangelino

Even you have to admit these two things: the CDC numbers take into account whether or not someone is using the drug as directed or not and in published studies about serodiscordant couples, not ONE negative partner became positive when taking Truvada as directed.

---

Wes, I'm not using the CDC numbers. I'm using YOUR numbers. The number you pulled out of your ass was 99%.
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=262
Would you like now to revise that estimate? To what value and why?

You have yet to state clearly, or in any other fashion, why truvada use over time cannot be modeled as a run of independent random experiments. Perhaps don't properly understand what YOU mean by "99% effective." Perhaps YOU could calculate for us the odds of HIV transmission over time using truvada alone and then using truvada with condoms. It is exactly the kind of information someone contemplating its long term use would want to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

That last remark by westheangelino is irresponsible bollocks. Undetectable does NOT mean not infectious. Ask a doctor. It might make the risk lower but definitly does not mean they are not a risk.

As for HIV being manageable. yes. True. But they also say that in later life the chances of dying earlier from other infections is heightened. Plus HIV also has the ability to mutate. So drug treatments presently effective at controlling it may well not continue to work. Plus who wants to have to religiously take a tough regime of drugs - some of which have side effects - for the rest of their life for the pleasure of a few minutes of bareback sex.

Play safe. Use condoms and Truvada. Do NOT forsake the great degree of safety that the use of condoms provides.

---

Complete bollocks? This two year study, which I'm sure you've never read, would say YOU are the one spouting nonsense.

http://www.aidsmap.com/No-one-with-a.../page/2832748/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sexyjoe84

Hi,

I'm taking truvada and kaletra after a possible exposure during oral...
The side effects aren't nice.. Not even sure I should be taking them to be fair but still, better safe than sorry...

Great thread though with good discussions.

---

1. HIV is not transmitted through oral sex. Why do you think you could have been infected?

2. You're taking PEP (post exposure) as opposed to PrEP (pre-exposure). Of course you're having some side effects. You're taking two drugs not one and in much higher dosages than what would be given as PrEP. Please educate yourself before you start warning of side effects regarding Truvada for PrEP. From all accounts I've heard of people actually on it for prevention, the side effects range from mild to nonexistent. I can't wait til I am on it myself to let you guys know how it's going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westheangelino

1. HIV is not transmitted through oral sex.

---

Congratulations. You're spreading more misinformation.

This thread isn't just annoying and logic-impaired; it's also dangerous. You should be proud.

Low risk does not mean no risk.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/behavior/oralsex.html

If I may retort:

http://www.aidsmap.com/Oral-sex-risk.../page/1432786/

And according to British NHS information sites having such a low viral count that it is undetectable lowers but does not eliminate the risk of infection. So stop preaching dangerous misinformation. If anyone is infected because they follow your advice then you should be ashamed and - were it at all possible - be held criminally culpable.

^ Would you say the same of anyone preaching a condom only approach that tells people not to take Truvada? What of campaigns that say Truvada isn't effective? I doubt you would give them the same scrutiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tapatio

Congratulations. You're spreading more misinformation.

This thread isn't just annoying and logic-impaired; it's also dangerous. You should be proud.

Low risk does not mean no risk.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/behavior/oralsex.html

---

Actually, he is sort of right. There are doctors ( I do like to read medical stuff don't ask), who would sort of agree. Doctors will not say the possibility is zero, meaning since there is exchange of fluid, they can never rule it out as zero. Salvia inhibits in the transmission of the disease. One doctor in years of practice HIV, has not seen the transfer of HIV by oral sex. Those that claim to have acquired that method, when question have change their story about how they received the disease. For the disease to be transferred you need an open wound or sores. Even still you would need some other factors to cause transfer. I have given and receive oral sex and unless the person has sores or cut, then the possibility is pretty much null. The more diligent you are in having sex, the more safe you will be.

Many times people are not aware of the risks they take while engaging sex. I have been looking at Truvada and its history since West keeps going on and on about it more clearly. It has been given as prep for a few years. I find that some people on Truvada have an ambivalence to condom use as I suspected and would prefer the risk of engaging in unprotected sex. Those are the people who Truvada is really targeted. They can continue to have sex with lowering the chance of transmission. Now, by how much I am very curious. That's what I have been keeping my eye out for. I have read some interesting things about it, but then again HIV is not as easily transmitted as people tend to think.

Condoms are great for safe sex, but this product is aimed at people who would care less for condoms. Before we throw stones at this group, more people have engaged in bareback sex then they would like to admit whether in a relationship or in the heat of the moment. I've been offered bareback sex too many times from people I have known for one night, which always scares me. So I think we should be more understanding of their decisions. It still does not excuse their irresponsible behavior, but at least we can understand their decision.

I will certainly keep an eye on this topic. I'm very curious to how its going to progress. I believe there are going to be some major lawsuits against the pharmaceutical company in the future, this is my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lifeisfiction

Actually, he is sort of right. There are doctors ( I do like to read medical stuff don't ask), who would sort of agree. Doctors will not say the possibility is zero, meaning since there is exchange of fluid, they can never rule it out as zero. Salvia inhibits in the transmission of the disease. One doctor in years of practice HIV, has not seen the transfer of HIV by oral sex. Those that claim to have acquired that method, when question have change their story about how they received the disease. For the disease to be transferred you need an open wound or sores. Even still you would need some other factors to cause transfer. I have given and receive oral sex and unless the person has sores or cut, then the possibility is pretty much null. The more diligent you are in having sex, the more safe you will be.

Many times people are not aware of the risks they take while engaging sex. I have been looking at Truvada and its history since West keeps going on and on about it more clearly. It has been given as prep for a few years. I find that some people on Truvada have an ambivalence to condom use as I suspected and would prefer the risk of engaging in unprotected sex. Those are the people who Truvada is really targeted. They can continue to have sex with lowering the chance of transmission. Now, by how much I am very curious. That's what I have been keeping my eye out for. I have read some interesting things about it, but then again HIV is not as easily transmitted as people tend to think.

Condoms are great for safe sex, but this product is aimed at people who would care less for condoms. Before we throw stones at this group, more people have engaged in bareback sex then they would like to admit whether in a relationship or in the heat of the moment. I've been offered bareback sex too many times from people I have known for one night, which always scares me. So I think we should be more understanding of their decisions. It still does not excuse their irresponsible behavior, but at least we can understand their decision.

I will certainly keep an eye on this topic. I'm very curious to how its going to progress. I believe there are going to be some major lawsuits against the pharmaceutical company in the future, this is my opinion.

---

Aside from your last sentence, this is maybe the most sensible thing posted in reply to my posts. Thank you, sincerely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lifeisfiction

Actually, he is sort of right. There are doctors ( I do like to read medical stuff don't ask), who would sort of agree. Doctors will not say the possibility is zero, meaning since there is exchange of fluid, they can never rule it out as zero. Salvia inhibits in the transmission of the disease. One doctor in years of practice HIV, has not seen the transfer of HIV by oral sex. Those that claim to have acquired that method, when question have change their story about how they received the disease. For the disease to be transferred you need an open wound or sores. Even still you would need some other factors to cause transfer. I have given and receive oral sex and unless the person has sores or cut, then the possibility is pretty much null. The more diligent you are in having sex, the more safe you will be.

Many times people are not aware of the risks they take while engaging sex. I have been looking at Truvada and its history since West keeps going on and on about it more clearly. It has been given as prep for a few years. I find that some people on Truvada have an ambivalence to condom use as I suspected and would prefer the risk of engaging in unprotected sex. Those are the people who Truvada is really targeted. They can continue to have sex with lowering the chance of transmission. Now, by how much I am very curious. That's what I have been keeping my eye out for. I have read some interesting things about it, but then again HIV is not as easily transmitted as people tend to think.

Condoms are great for safe sex, but this product is aimed at people who would care less for condoms. Before we throw stones at this group, more people have engaged in bareback sex then they would like to admit whether in a relationship or in the heat of the moment. I've been offered bareback sex too many times from people I have known for one night, which always scares me. So I think we should be more understanding of their decisions. It still does not excuse their irresponsible behavior, but at least we can understand their decision.

I will certainly keep an eye on this topic. I'm very curious to how its going to progress. I believe there are going to be some major lawsuits against the pharmaceutical company in the future, this is my opinion.

---

I get where you're coming from but it doesn't seem right at all.

He stated that one can not get HIV through oral sex. That's not correct. Not even "sort of."

This conversation is a mitigation of fact in support of the mitigation of risk.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.VFAslWSwKNA

I will reiterate some of my points in a shorter simpler fashion.

1. In terms of oral transmission of HIV there is medical possibility, looking at how the disease is transmitted versus what they have found in people who have acquired HIV. Some medical professionals, those who work HIV and STD transmission meaning the 10,000s of patients a year typical find it rarely or never see HIV transmitted through oral sex alone. If they do, there is additional factors not commonly found during the act of oral sex.

Furthermore those who have claimed to have acquired HIV through oral sex tend to change their stories upon further investigation lower the credibility of their claim. (People tend to be embarrassed about their riskier sexual activities.) So while it seems medically possible, the actual number of people who acquired it by oral sex does not match the actual medical probability.

2. There are a group of people who will not use condoms. This group pose the highest risk of transmitting HIV. Many in medical field hope that since they will not use the condom method, that Truvada will provide some sort of protection for that group who would not use condoms consistently during their sexual activities. I believe West would fall into this group.

Furthermore I said many people at one time or another have had bareback sex. So many can understand their desire of it. I wanted not to have condemning tone to this high risk group. Of course I think they are being irresponsible, but they would care less of my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westheangelino

If I may retort:

http://www.aidsmap.com/Oral-sex-risk.../page/1432786/

---

If by "retort" you mean "agree" then you did very well.

Wes, words mean things. Important things.



.

Full disclosure: I've never given head through a condom. I don't intend the next penis in my mouth to be covered, or the next, or the next.

I definitely agree that the risk is low, or I wouldn't take it.

I also have impeccable oral hygiene, though. Floss, people, every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westheangelino

I have no idea how many of the 50K infections are due to condom failure. I would bet not many. I'm not saying condoms are not effective. I'm saying condoms have not been an effective strategy for ending the HIV epidemic.

---

You just said that condom failure has not resulted in many infections.

So if condom failure does not result in many infections, what is causing all these infections?

Could it be... that people aren't wearing condoms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tapatio

Full disclosure: I've never given head through a condom. I don't intend the next penis in my mouth to be covered, or the next, or the next.

I definitely agree that the risk is low, or I wouldn't take it.

I also have impeccable oral hygiene, though. Floss, people, every day.

---

I agree,...pretty much same here...
though to be safe...I believe it's been said not to floss right before giving head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamon

You just said that condom failure has not resulted in many infections.

So if condom failure does not result in many infections, what is causing all these infections?

Could it be... that people aren't wearing condoms?

---

DUH. That's why I said they are not effective as a strategy to END an epidemic. If you want HIV to remain at current levels, please continue. But there will always be a portion of the population that will not or cannot wear condoms. So, clearly something else is needed. That something else has arrived, and it's called Truvada.

As for oral sex,

ANYTHING is possible. The chances of me winning the lottery are not zero, but I'm not rushing to go buy a ticket. The chances of me being killed by a stray boulder in Runyon canyon are not zero, but it wouldn't keep me from hiking there. The chances of getting HIV by sucking a dick are not zero,but.....you get the picture right?

Wes, are you on it yet?