POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: wtfimpoz on November 23, 2010, 04:15:14 pm
-
I'm rather surprised to find myself the first person posting about this. Thoughts anyone?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40333614/ns/health-mens_health/
-
Yes, interesting, hadn't seen this before.
However as the article states, I see a big problem with the price of the pill and the insurance companies willingness (or unwillingness) to pay for such when used as a preventative medication.
Also Tru can be hard on the Kidneys in some people (potential example me), and there are really no studies on long term use of Truvada.
So given all of that not sure why someone would choose to use Tru daily on a long term basis as a preventative med...especially when Condoms can do the trick cheaper and maybe safer.
but nonetheless an interesting take onTruvada.
-Will
-
If we can't get funding to get those of us already suffering from HIV/AIDS and in need of meds our drugs, what makes people think there will be funding to give meds to people who could just as well use condoms correctly and every time like they should! Hmmph! The study even said this wasn't intended to let people have sex without condoms. So... I really don't see the point. If anything, this will draw funding away from people whose lives are in danger!
odyssey
-
I'm kinda baffled by the spin the media is putting on this story , its a known fact pep works for exposure risk . Unless they are planning on putting Truvada in the water supply like fluoride I just don't see a big story here , or am I just missing something ?
-
Not everyone is a liberty to use condoms, like sex workers or inmates. How were gonna find 12k a year for those people is anyones best guess. I'd be shocked if American insurance companies start funding this without a fight.,,look at the big stink they've raised over birth control in the past. This is one of those studies which probably won't benefit most people, but hey, it's gotta be nice to be a wealthy, promiscuous neg. gay man.
-
Not everyone is a liberty to use condoms, like sex workers or inmates. How were gonna find 12k a year for those people is anyones best guess. I'd be shocked if American insurance companies start funding this without a fight.,,look at the big stink they've raised over birth control in the past. This is one of those studies which probably won't benefit most people, but hey, it's gotta be nice to be a wealthy, promiscuous neg. gay man.
What do you mean sex workers can't use condoms? Are you freakin' serious? Only a really naive sex worker would go to his/her job without being prepared by bringing condoms. And as for prisoners, having sex is illegal in pretty much every single penal institution in the US. I highly doubt they would start passing out drugs to prevent sexual transmission of HIV, when it might only condone inmates having sex.
As for it being nice to be a wealthy promiscuous neg. gay man, the study results specifically indicated that this wasn't intended to replace condoms, so I doubt many people will be buying up Truvada if they can't ditch the rubbers.
Plus, there are the side effects of Truvada. I was on it for only a few months and my liver (or kidneys, don't remember which) were already heading downhill.
Overall, its just not practical, and I don't see it happening. Interesting research results, but completely and utterly useless results as it stands.
odyssey
-
Thoughts anyone?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40333614/ns/health-mens_health/
There was some discussion on this back in 2006. I think at that time, the discussion was focused on Tenofovir ( One of the ingredients of Truvada ) In the club scene, it was known as taking the "T". In fact it was my niece at the time, that brought it to my attention about "T" in the club scene
This thread goes back a while :
http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=2159.0
http://www.advocate.com/article.aspx?id=37965
-
I'm kinda baffled by the spin the media is putting on this story , its a known fact pep works for exposure risk . Unless they are planning on putting Truvada in the water supply like fluoride I just don't see a big story here , or am I just missing something ?
Baffled here by the spin. Wouldn't be surprised if this is drug company sponsored research. I guess its cool that there is research in this area, however, since there has been talk for several years about Pre-exposure prophylaxis for high risk groups as a prevention measure. And also it seems from the gossip I hear this is common practice for fans of sex marathons at circuit parties?
Which leads to my second wondering - why this would decrease partners and risk taking - at least in the "gay scene" as I have experienced it in Europe and the US.
Like the Swiss Statement, would seem to be an invitation for risk taking by gay guys misconstruing the findings to their own desires and sexual agenda.
What they should research - for the developed world - is guys who DONT work as gigolos, but rather guys who would be interested in buying Indian truvada to bareback. And who would bareback anyway if they didn't have the truvada. So does that reduce transmission. And I guess it would. But - what if its only a reduction... Not a sure thing. As safer sex is pretty much a sure thing with rare exceptions.
Overall it seems like a rat fuck in the making...
-
Its possible to get access to antiretorvirals without HIV simply because you don't feel like using condoms? Who exactly has the kind of relationship with their doctor that they can pull that one off?
The medication likely didn't decrease risk taking. More than likely, ALL participants in the surveys were continuously told in follow up visits to wear condoms and reduce their partners, regardless of whether they were on the placebo or the real thing.
Not all of these guys worked as gigolos, only about 40% had received money for sex. Most of them were simply regarded as participating in "high risk" (barebacking) behavior. Its an unusual study to say the least, starting with the abysmal adherence rate of the populations studied, and onto the sheer unliklihood of the stuff being used as prophylaxis by the general population due to its cost. I'm sure this'll piss a lot of people off, but theres something about the dynamics of this study that irk me. The message seems to be that if you're a jackass who barebacks regularly and remained negative through sheer luck, you've gained access to wonderdrugs which'll probably carry you through the rest of your life as negative, but if you're a regular fella whose partner cheated, or whose condom broke, or who tricked with a psychopath who took the condom off, or just made a random occasional mistake, you're still fucked. It strikes me as reverse karma. Like I said earlier, its a great time to be alive, if you're a gay man with money to burn who intentionally puts himself at risk. And yeah, my understanding is that historically, major advances in areas like this haven't DECREASED transmission rates, they've increased them
-
I was with a group of friends tonight when we saw it reported on NBC Nightly News:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40344952#40344952
Everyone had their views with many asking why would someone want to take a pill everyday that could cause side-effects. I said there are people who refuse to wear condoms. Many of these people have multiple sex partners and bareback with all of them. They love bareback sex and aren't going to change. They accept the risks of HIV, or are in denial. I said, for them, taking a pill per day, even with any possible side-effects, would be worth it. It seems like it would be better to take chances with possible kidney issues than get infected with HIV and have to deal with the meds anyway.
-
I was with a group of friends tonight when we saw it reported on NBC Nightly News:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40344952#40344952
Everyone had their views with many asking why would someone want to take a pill everyday that could cause side-effects. I said there are people who refuse to wear condoms. Many of these people have multiple sex partners and bareback with all of them. They love bareback sex and aren't going to change. They accept the risks of HIV, or are in denial. I said, for them, taking a pill per day, even with any possible side-effects, would be worth it. It seems like it would be better to take chances with possible kidney issues than get infected with HIV and have to deal with the meds anyway.
See... what you're missing here is that the study was about using the Truvada and condoms together! It was not about using Truvada alone to prevent transmission of HIV. The authors specifically stated that was not the conclusion they reached, and that people should not be doing that. So, for all the men you mentioned who would like to keep barebacking and take a pill, they are probably going to get infected anyway because there is no proof Truvada alone will keep them from catching HIV.
-
See... what you're missing here is that the study was about using the Truvada and condoms together! It was not about using Truvada alone to prevent transmission of HIV. The authors specifically stated that was not the conclusion they reached, and that people should not be doing that. So, for all the men you mentioned who would like to keep barebacking and take a pill, they are probably going to get infected anyway because there is no proof Truvada alone will keep them from catching HIV.
This makes no sense to me. If they are talking about using this along with condoms, then why even study it? Why would anyone take the meds, if they were going to use condoms? It doesn't seem worth taking a medication to prevent HIV just in case you had a condom failure.
-
ABC News gave the topic more time than the other newscasts. I'm always glad to see HIV news making the major evening newscasts.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/preventing-hiv-pill-atiretroviral-drugs-infection-aids-prevention-12229552
Modified: This story was followed by a follow-up to the Pope, condom, HIV story. Two stories dealing with HIV within one 22 minute newscast.
-
Q and A on this study from the NIH
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/Pages/iPrExQA.aspx
NIAID sponsored the iPrEx study through a grant to the J David Gladstone Institutes, a non-profit independent research organization affiliated with the University of California at San Francisco. Additional study funding was provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Gilead Sciences donated the study drug.
I note, this is as effective as, say, oral contraception, which is a good comparison I think, logisitics, adherence and side effects wise.
- matt
-
There are now 4, count em, threads with the prep as the main subject.
Moderators, can't you combine the ones that should be combined, please.
http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=35419.msg441004#msg441004
http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=35420.msg441022#msg441022
http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=35421.msg441025#msg441025
http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=35419.msg441078#msg441078