Printable View
****RAISES HAND****
I've been on Truvada for nearly five months now. No more anxiety about HIV and no side effects! Our ranks are growing, and several prominent people (including an SF County Supervisor) have come out of the Truvada Whore closet. I know of at least one VERY WELL KNOWN TS porn star who is on it. Will anyone else break the silence and raise their hand? This is the only way we can halt the spread of HIV. THE CLOSET KILLS!!!
You starting with this bullshit again?
I see no posts about a topic that should be shouted about from the rooftops on this forum. So, yes, here I go again.
HIV/AIDS disproportionately affects our community. Truvada has been proven to be the most powerful weapon against its spread. Why wouldn't I start with this truth (not BS) again?
Take truvada and remember to play it safe as well. Wrap it and avoid unprotected sex.
Wes, in the other thread all the links posted it went from 70 to 95% protection from HIV. Happy you did not have the side effects witch include diarea and liver problems (have you had a scan for your liver?) This is not the end all protection and I think you need to be more acurate on that
I don't have truvada but I might have a liver disease - found out yesterday :(
Angelina, So do you still take it up the butt without a condom when you're on this? Or is it drug and condom?
oooo! OOOooo! I know this one!Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobySteven
Being more cautious isn't necessarily a bad thing. But if you take this to skimp on other protection methods, you open yourself up for a whole host of other STD's. Some of which are becoming bigger epidemics with fewer and fewer antibiotics that will effectively treat them.
I applaud your courage for sticking your neck out on this issue.
I would be on Truvada if I could afford it.
Syphilis Is Surging, and U.S. Public Health Officials Aren't Sure Why
It's hard to miss "SYPHILIS EXPLOSION" ads that prominently feature those capitalized words before a fiery red erupting volcano. They were plastered across BART stations in the Bay Area and billboards in Los Angeles late last year courtesy of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which says the campaign has already appeared in or is heading to Cleveland, Columbus, Baton Rouge, Brooklyn and other cities.
Syphilis, which can cause serious health problems if untreated, is on a troubling upswing across the United States. The rate of primary and secondary syphilis infections fell by nearly 90 percent between 1990 and 2000, but has increased most years since, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report analyzing public health data through 2013. This recent wave of syphilis is mostly a problem confronting gay men—or, to use the broader medical term, men who have sex with men. Between 2000 and 2004 alone, the CDC reports that the estimated proportion of primary and secondary syphilis infections attributable to men having sex with men rose dramatically, from 7 percent to 64 percent.
Nationwide, the CDC reports that primary and secondary syphilis rates increased by 10 percent between 2012 and 2013—an infection rate more than twice as high as figures from 2001. The Atlanta, Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angles, Miami, Orlando, Portland, San Antonio, San Diego and San Francisco metro areas have some of the highest syphilis rates, according to the CDC.
In the San Francisco Bay area, reported cases rose from 438 in 2009 to 814 in 2013. In Washington, D.C., Dr. Raymond C. Martins, senior director of clinical education at Whitman-Walker Health,says that the clinic saw a 32 percent increase in syphilis cases among patients between 2011 and 2014. And in recent months, at least 15 cases of ocular syphilis, a serious complication of the disease that can cause blindness, have been reported in California and Washington state, according to an alert released earlier this month by the CDC. Most of these infections have occurred among HIV-positive men who have sex with men.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/syp...why/ar-AAb3qBf
Sex Superbug Could Be 'Worse Than AIDS'
An antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea—now considered a superbug—has some analysts saying that the bacteria's effects could match those of AIDS.
"This might be a lot worse than AIDS in the short run because the bacteria is more aggressive and will affect more people quickly," said Alan Christianson, a doctor of naturopathic medicine.
Even though nearly 30 million people have died from AIDS related causes worldwide, Christianson believes the effect of the gonorrhea bacteria is more direct.
"Getting gonorrhea from this strain might put someone into septic shock and death in a matter of days," Christianson said. "This is very dangerous."
"It's an emergency situation," said William Smith, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors. "As time moves on, it's getting more hazardous."
This gonorrhea strain, HO41, was discovered in Japan two years ago in a 31-year-old female sex worker who had been screened in 2009. The bacteria has since been found in Hawaii, California and Norway.
(Correction: The statement that H041 was found in places beyond Japan is incorrect, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gonorrhea strains resistant to a certain antibiotic not routinely recommended by CDC as a first-line treatment regimen for gonorrhea were detected in Hawaii, but other treatments ultimately cured those infections in follow-up. To date, there have been no treatment failures reported in the U.S.for gonorrhea treated with currently-recommended first-line regimens.)
Because it resists current antibiotic treatment, the strain has been placed in the superbug category with other resistant bacteria, such as MRSA and CRE. These superbugs kill about half the people they attack, and nearly one in 20 hospital patients become infected with one, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Though no deaths from HO41 have been reported, efforts to combat it must continue, Smith said.
"We have to keep beating the drum on this," he said. "The potential for disaster is great."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100685883
Exactly how much is this "protection" costing you and if you're not paying, who is footing the bill just so that you can have your fun without condoms (which are cheap and more effective)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
I'm still convinced that he's getting a discount based on cheerleading social media posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laphroaig
If you read through the last Truvada thread he has...
On second thought, don't read through his last Truvada thread.
Or this one.
He has no interest in anything but advertising.
From what I remember, Wes was a test subject...he mentioned that numerous times...so unless it's over, I would assume that he's paying nothing. Also, I doubt Gilead is paying him to advertise since that company is not actively pushing it's HIV medication because there isn't enough profit in it (there was an article about it on an investment site if I remember correctly)...most of their money is made in the HEP C market.
...and as far as condoms are concerned, and we've been through this, yes they are cheaper, but this drug is excellent for folks who live with HIV poz partners and...
YES, folks who aren't always that careful and know it. All preaching aside , there are tons of folks, who because of a multitude of personal habits or weaknesses or whatever, are not going to always use condoms regardless of the Officer McGruff warnings. It's human nature. We're slaves to our desires. If folks like that can afford to take this drug...power to them. I myself may be on this if it's affordable to my insurance plan and I can get a prescription.
Oh, and if my insurance covers it and it's convenient to take, I don't care what it costs someone else...why?...because for years I'm helping to foot the bill for you cigarette smoking, fat eating, non-exercising, hypochondriac motherfuckers who have to see the doctor every fucking time they get the sniffles or a boo-boo and demand health care to cover it.
...hell, I may add a prescription of 100mg viagra to that also..lol
From all the studies I read they do blind testing where half the those receive Truvada and half of them receive a placebo. Only in the one test where they administered Truvada after the person had unprotected sex with a unknown partner they actually administered Truvada. I am curious if Gilead gets the other HIV drugged to be backed by the FDA for Prep use, since both are taken together with people who have HIV, will he go and take both? Still I am curious if the study he is participating in is a blind study or they are actually giving everyone Truvada?
I agree with Fred that people will act like saints, but because they do have unprotected sex in lapse of judgment or once in a blue moon, or play the numbers game it's no so bad. At least people who are taking it are trying to prevent something no matter the level of effectiveness and at least they acknowledge they need to have some sort of protection.
try not to worry til you know for sure (It's true advice, but impossible to follow...I'm sorry)...I got my fingers crossed for you Ashlyn.Quote:
Originally Posted by AshlynCreamher
I'd love to see the informed consent forms for those studies!Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeisfiction
I agree with Fred about the Officer McGruff warnings as we're adults and can do what we want. But I think a lot of Wes' earlier posts sort of read like someone telling people they shouldn't worry about smoking because the link between smoking and lung cancer is tenuous. Then the person finds a different fix that avoids some of the earlier hazards and they pretend like they're Mr. Responsible and will not shut up about what they're doing.
If the newest discovery in HIV prevention were a fail-proof condom that limited sensation one millionth of a percent, Wes would instead be casting doubt on the wisdom of using it.
what is personal responsibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
wes l BB and bottoms, end of discussionQuote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Just like that it's over?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBest
he wants you to fuck him in the ass w/o a condom because Truvada said it was okQuote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
That day may be closer than you think...Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-10170841.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technol...d-feel-5517361
It might even deliver viagra for fred41.
There are strains of HIV which Truvada does not work on and will not help with. And as others have pointed out, there are other diseases out there. Don't forget about Hep C, among others. If you are in a relationship with someone who is HIV positive and Truvada works for them, then good for you. Otherwise it's only a less risky form of Russian Roulette.
awesome sauce!...now if only it would get rid of the headache.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laphroaig
(I know...picky, picky, picky)
There's no such thing as personal responsibility...reread the post. Tons of folks use up health insurance like it's a freebie.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBest
To shed some much needed light:
1. I am a participant in a study by UCLA via the Los Angeles LGBT Clinic. I was on a long waiting list for six months. Before I was prescribed the drug, I was given the following: safe sex counseling, including access to condoms, a full panel STD test, an HIV test, a blood test to determine the health of my kidneys and liver. Two weeks later, after a clean bill of health I was given a 30 day supply of Truvada (along with phosphate supplements for bone and kidney health....which I have never taken) with more counseling and a repeat of the steps above as well as more blood for genetic mapping (most people don't know this but a small % of the population is immune to HIV due to the Bubonic Plague, which shares receptors with HIV). For the next three months I repeated the above process including the sexual health counseling and recorded (via my consent, you didn't have to record if you didn't want to) conversations about my sexual activity. Not to mention recommendations for drug and alcohol counseling based purely on my honest responses to a survey about my sexual practices and substance use. After three months of responsibly taking the drug, I am now doing the above steps every two months until a year after my initial visit.
Truvada is effective. Gilead is not marketing for two reasons: one is the backlash from AHF and like groups who are tied to a condom only strategy and don't want a PR reaction to a return of things like the 70's fast track bath house culture which would only amplify and give credence to the opinions of the opposite end of the social spectrum (i.e. groups that hate gays and gay sex). Second, is that they do not currently have a profit structure for the drug that matches actually treating HIV pos people. The second will disappear as more and more govt, entities get behind this since they are usually the ones footing the bill. It is far cheaper to give every single gay/bi/trans person Truvada in the USA for the rest of their lives than to treat all the POZ folk already out there.
Truvada is extremely effective and takes on the nature of a vaccine the more people use it. It is also one of the three main drugs that POZ people take, and study after study shows that POZ people who are in treatment are NOT able to spread HIV.
Get it!
No I don't get it - as I don't think you answered my question. Does this mean you take it up the bum, without a condom because the drug will stop you contracting HIV - or is it to be used in conjunction with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Or are you already positive and that's why you were on the trial?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobySteven
Clearly you're ignorant of the whole subject if you ask that question. Truvada has been used to treat HIV pos people people for a decade. It keeps the virus from copying itself. The drug works in neg people by preventing the virus from copying in the first place. Why the fuck would I be in a trial for something that has been prescribed to poz people for TEN YEARS if I was poz???????!!!!! GET A CLUE PLEASE.
And to clearly answer your question, I like the majority of sexually active people in a a high risk group do not consistently use condoms when getting fucked. Don't act like I'm some weird pariah for saying this. If I was some crazy outlier, we wouldn't have 50k+ new infections each year in the USA alone. IT IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN CONDOMS IN THE REAL WORLD.
So you're promoting the use of a drug which you have no idea how much it costs?
As to your last statement, it may well be more effective than condoms in preventing HIV transmission but you are still ignoring the fact that it is COMLETELY USELESS at preventing the spread of any other STD, some of which are just as nasty as HIV.
Your stance is therefore totally irresponsible.
Yes, I am ignorant and that's why I asked the question - so get off your high horse, or just get the fuck out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
You stated it's MORE EFFECTIVE THAN CONDOMS? So you're saying that you are confident that you are not going to get infected by taking positive loads anally, if you take this drug? I'm not talking about the "majority of sexually active people", I'm asking about you specifically and this drug.
You've also not answered the other questions about other STD's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Not smart, Wes, but not surprising.
Agreed. And proven in his last (and now abandoned) thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laphroaig
"Wishing it were so" is, IMO, the most dangerous of the scientific fallacies, especially combined with blind zealotry.
Why are folks arguing with Wes about it. We have threads arguing about it. It sounds like the test is blind, where they ask a high risk group about participating in the drug effectiveness. But I would like know more of the study and since its by UCLA, I might just call them and ask about the study. Easiest way to understand what they are doing. I am not going to be hard on Wes, because I was thinking about it and from my experience there is a lot of hush, hush barebacking that does go on. I use get tired of being asked about it or girls rubbing their ass with my dicks saying its ok. And with the HIV rate among transgender in NY, well someone is doing something. Even more so people believe if you are topping well you can't get HIV? Look, I think condoms are just fine, but for some reason of late people don't really care to use condoms. Is truvada a great drug, I don't think so, but so far in the studies besides the New York times it seems to have some sort of effectiveness. Its better than nothing.
Highly confident. Please read through my first thread about this. There are over a dozen links to studies or news articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobySteven
As for not taking the phosphates, someone said that is not smart, but it is voluntary in my study. Some very few people experience kidney issues with this drug. I have had none and am tested for such problems every time I go in to the clinic. Should my levels become low, I'll start taking them. But currently I either just don't react negatively to the drug, or my diet is already sufficient to counteract any ill effects on my kidneys.
There is a HUGE stigma about barebacking, but it happens MOST of the time. Yes, MOST. Survey after survey among both gay and straight folk show that condoms are NOT used a majority of the time. If you don't believe me, please look at stats regarding unwanted pregnancies and new HIV transmission. Everyone says they would never, but I know this firsthand to be bullshit. I have zero shame of my desires in the past as I knew the risk and got tested very regularly and routinely. Now I have no shame AND no anxiety. And guess what? My promiscuity hasn't increased since being on the drug. If anything I'm a little more choosy, and several of my partners have opted for condoms.
As for taking POZ loads, before taking this drug I would NEVER have considered taking a load or even having protected sex with someone who told me they were POZ. Today, I would.
As for other STD's:
Truvada has been shown to reduce herpes infection rates by 30% http://www.hivplusmag.com/prevention...nfection-rates.
Condoms on the other hand are basically useless against herpes or HPV: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article...es-3650285.php
I'm not worried about other STD's. Truly, I'm not.
Then, I have to agree with lifesfiction, it's pointless arguing with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
Wes, in the end it's your life and your choice, but you really are a TOTAL MUPPET.
http://www.healthline.com/health-new...-needed-022415
^Pretty sobering article for the anti-Truvada crowd. Reposting here since the admins of this forum are cool with a million threads of the same ridiculous subjects like "am I gay??" or "how to bottom", but aren't cool with multiple threads about something that has the power to end a health crisis that threatens this community more than any other in America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westheangelino
I'm just not cool about you, I think you're a tit. You don't answer questions when directed at you - yet you freely publicize something as an evangelist. They can contact me for advertising rates if they want.