New PrEP thread. "Truvada is a party drug." Discuss

[mecch]

Since it sneaks into other threads every month, here's a new thread to have at it directly.

Michael Weinstein, head of the AIDS Health Care Foundation, is no fan of PreP and let it be known here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/truvada-gay-men-hiv_n_5102515.html

"If something comes along that's better than condoms, I'm all for it, but Truvada is not that," said Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. "Let's be honest: It's a party drug."


Buzzfeed discusses the controversy, here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tonymerevick/head-of-largest-us-hivaids-healthcare-organization-still-ins

Weinstein, who has long been a critic of the blue pill, has no intentions of stepping aside or quieting down and blames much of the backlash he’s received on what he said is the “bareback porn industry.” Michael Lucas, creator of one of the largest gay porn companies, Lucas Entertainment, also called for Weinstein to leave his job in an op-ed published by Out magazine.

“In the last few days in terms of the people who have been yelling the loudest about this, they’ve all been associated with bareback porn,” he said. “They’re all associated with bareback porn, which kind of makes my point that it’s a party drug.”

According to Lucas, Weinstein should be removed from his post immediately, saying, “Mr. Weinstein knows how to portray PrEP, along with gay men, in the most unattractive light,” Lucas wrote. “… In Mr. Weinsteing’s eyes, PrEP isn’t about public health. It’s just a highly expensive way for those horny, irresponsible gays to go back to their barebacking-gone-wild.”

[zach]

fundamentally opposed

a truveda party, that'll smell great

some of the things i feel about the rationalizations for this, i don't think i should say publically here, there will be hurt feelings. i go further (is it farther, i've never known) than weinstein in thinking its failed logic. and with some proponents of it, i seriously question their motivations and agenda

[AusShep]

Weinstein is an ass, and he should be forced out.  His arguments fail to consider the real world problems of alcohol, substance abuse, psychiatric disorders, sero-discordant relationships, etc.  His arguments about adherence have no more weight than saying we should stop taking HIV drugs since some people aren't adherent.  Further, early studies have shown risk behavior hasn't gone up yet for those taking it, i.e. The excuse to bareback rationale.

My partner is negative, we've been together nearly 22 years, and I've been poz for 19+.  He's not on PrEP now, but very well may be next year when he switches insurance.  Sometimes it feels like we've been lucky and are playing Russian Roulette, although with a very large magazine, and possibly no bullets. 

He's also been diagnosed bi-polar about 6 years ago, and one of the symptoms of mania is unsafe sexual practices.  He's screwed up before, but been lucky.  If we decide to go on PrEP, one of the reasons will be as extra insurance in case he does have a manic episode and really isn't in control of what he does.  I don't think we would use it as an excuse to bareback, pending more results from the partner studies.

Since PrEP can prevent infections of those subject to lapses in judgement, be it due to drugs, alcohol, feeling safe with someone who says they're monagomous or HIV- when they may not be, bi-polar, etc., I believe it is a valid additional protective measure in many cases, and shouldn't be used as slut shaming, or assumed to be only for those wanting a license to bareback without discretion.

[AusShep]

Another article this week, the AHF poster leatherman also wants Weinstein out:

http://www.wehoville.com/2014/04/15/calling-truvada-party-drug-ahfs-michael-weinstein-sparks-debate-might-illuminate-risks-rewards-prep/

Today Eric Paul Leue, recently named Mr. Los Angeles Leather and, coincidentally, a figure in a current AHF ad campaign, says he is launching a petition drive to demand that Weinstein resign from AHF, which he founded in 1987

[buginme2]

For Weinstein its not about whether Truvada prevents HIV its about people having sex without condoms. 

There are a number of people in the HIV prevention community who for decades have been pushing the "condom" message to prevent HIV.

In the past few years there has come to light 2 very effective ways to prevent HIV that does not include condom usage, PreP and Treatment as Prevention. 

Even though the science shows that they are equally (if not more) effective than condom usage there are many in the prevention community that are having a real hard time getting behind, because they dont include condoms.


There is something deeper with Weinstein.  His language about Truvada being a party drug is apparent that he some deep emotions regarding people have sex without condoms.  If Weinstein can't adjust his thinking and agency around new prevention methods that don't include condoms then he should resign. 

Also, the fact that he has dismissed someone because they are in the "bareback porn" industry is seems elitist.

[Bizkits]

fundamentally opposed

a truveda party, that'll smell great

some of the things i feel about the rationalizations for this, i don't think i should say publically here, there will be hurt feelings. i go further (is it farther, i've never known) than weinstein in thinking its failed logic. and with some proponents of it, i seriously question their motivations and agenda

I tend to agree with you on this. We all make unwise decisions at times, that's likely how most of us ended up in here. Perhaps if Truvada were available to me as PrEP, I wouldn't be taking it as a HIV-1 treatment.  I could see why some would consider it wreckless and hide underneath it's "umbrella" so to speak or using it as an excuse to justify unsafe behavior. However, when it comes down to it, it's another means of prevention and that shouldn't be overlooked.

By the way, further and farther are confusing as hell.
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/farther-vs-further/

[mecch]

I tend to agree with you on this. We all make unwise decisions at times, that's likely how most of us ended up in here. Perhaps if Truvada were available to me as PrEP, I wouldn't be taking it as a HIV-1 treatment.  I could see why some would consider it wreckless and hide underneath it's "umbrella" so to speak or using it as an excuse to justify unsafe behavior. However, when it comes down to it, it's another means of prevention and that shouldn't be overlooked.

By the way, further and farther are confusing as hell.
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/farther-vs-further/

I am confused bizkits.  I read Zach as being oppose to PrEP.  But your words sound like you think its another useful means of prevention...

[Jeff G]

I am very excited prep is an option for so many . Used correctly it could be one of the most powerful prevention tools we have ever seen .

The argument by some that contraception, condoms and pills will lead to promiscuity is hardly a new debate, this is the newest twist from the please don't have sex crowd .

[wolfter]

I didn't get a response in the other thread, so I get a second opportunity.    PrEP does nothing to address sexual responsibility in regards to other STD's and unwanted pregnancies. 

wolfie

[Jeff G]

I didn't get a response in the other thread, so I get a second opportunity.    PrEP does nothing to address sexual responsibility in regards to other STD's and unwanted pregnancies. 

wolfie

True , but it sure works as a tool for HIV and that's worth allot . 

[mecch]

People who use PrEP know that it is not a contraceptive and that it does not prevent other STDs.  Why must the merits of PrEP be put onto a false balance sheet against supposed downsides -- that are not at all what PrEP is designed for.

[Miss Philicia]

We have an entire program for this at my HIV clinic. IIRC it's funded by our city's Dept. of Health HIV Coordinating Office and is one of the first such kind on this scale in the US.

Yet another reason Philly sucks less than where you live.

[Jeff G]

We have an entire program for this at my HIV clinic. IIRC it's funded by our city's Dept. of Health HIV Coordinating Office and is one of the first such kind on this scale in the US.

Yet another reason Philly sucks less than where you live.

My clinic gives a basket of ramps with every bottle of Truvada is the ONLY place that does this .

[vertigo]

Jeff G is totally right.  PrEP is an amazing prevention option.  Not right for everyone, of course, but a really effective tool in the toolkit.  If condoms are so great, how come we still have so many new infections every year?

The very heated opposition that some have towards it reminds me of the backlash that followed the introduction of birth control pills -- that women who used them were sluts.  It seems rooted in a very Catholic or Puritanical view that sex is basically bad, and something to be ashamed of.

If the goal is to reduce the number of new infections, why oppose something that will help accomplish that goal?  Of course PrEP doesn't stop transmission of other STD's, but HIV remains the biggie.  It's the only one you can't get rid of, as we all know.

I could give more credence to the anti-PrEP crowd if I thought their opposition was wholly motivated by public health concerns, but I think some of them are working out other subtextual issues in public.  They should save them for their therapy sessions.

[AusShep]

... but HIV remains the biggie.  It's the only one you can't get rid of, as we all know...

Well, other than herpes, hpv, and in some cases hepatitis b and c.

[Bizkits]

I am confused bizkits.  I read Zach as being oppose to PrEP.  But your words sound like you think its another useful means of prevention...

Good point, I should clarify. I may be at a stage where I am turning the corner on this subject. At first, I was opposed for several reasons:

-as stated already, it's not useful as a preventative for other std's or contraception
-It's a drug. Unlike condoms, you have to be under close medical care, routinely check labs for kidney/liver function, it can potentially effect your triglycerides and cholesterol,  have to watch out for drug-drug interactions with anything else you may be taking. Not to mention other potential side effects.
-it's expensive
-risk of people using it irresponsibilly (an excuse to be unsafe or encourage that behavior). Or even giving them a false sense of security that they cannot contract hiv (even though unlikely).

BUT...I have to take a look at myself. I'm a healthy person despite being poz (and having kidney stones). I'm not out of shape, don't have any habbits that are too horrible and I generally take care of myself. Hell until now, I saw the doctor maybe once a year just for a check-up (less kidney stones, again lol). I also didn't care for condoms much and knowing my risks decided not to use them anyway. Now I'm here. And you know what else I realize? There are a lot of people that do the same thing I did. A whole bunch. Now I may not personally agree completely with dishing out Truvada like candy as it is something to take very seriously...but as I said, it can't be overlooked as a preventative. There is definitely some good to be had. It probably would have aided in my experience and escapades...

[mecch]

I would say it doesn't have to be a black and white, all good or all bad position.

I could easily see an uptick in other STDS if PrEP catches on in the urban gay horny and not that consistent with condoms set...  And thats not good.  Agreed. But its not necessarily a reason to say PrEP is bad because PrEP will prevent HIV infections and of course everyone who is interested in PrEP is not an "urban horny gay guy" or however you want to label this at risk group. 

We can't dismiss the fears about an uptick in STDs because we have been warned for a few years of some drug resistant ones in the pipeline.....

So, can't the public hold contradictory information in their minds? Cant we keep giving ALL the information about STDs and their prevention, and also go ahead and use this PrEP tool to prevent one STD, at least for several years, and evaluate it along the way?

[vertigo]

AusShep, my understanding of the new Hep-C drugs is that response rates above 90% are seen.  As for Hep-B, at least we have a vaccine for it.  Can't get rid of herpes or hpv, true, so I will stand <narrowly> corrected on that score.  But they're also something that most people can deal with, so I think my basic point still holds.

[zach]

I am confused bizkits.  I read Zach as being oppose to PrEP.  But your words sound like you think its another useful means of prevention...

you read me correctly. 5x5 except for one split hair. i do think it is effective, its not that i don't recognize that. but no offense to anyone meant, i agree to an extent with weinsteins sentiment if not his choice of words. i'm the last to slut shame anyone

edited to add, i am in very close alignment with biz on this. i even sort of feel the same thing he does, there may be a way of framing the debate that brings me around the corner

i just don't really think so. i understand the choice of words "party drug" and for some nobody like me to say it is one thing, for a representative in the office he hold, it was maybe not the wisest way of wording it

[Miss Philicia]

I remember back around 2001 first encountering pre-packaged baggies of meth, tenofovir and viagra called MTV during circuit events like The Black Party -- perhaps Mr. Weinstein is just confused.

[zach]

i love you, really do. you have an incredible ability to slice right to the heart of an issue with so few words and so much truth

[pittman]

If PrEP is just a party drug, then so are birth control pills.  At least Limbaugh was consistent in that matter.

[Grasshopper]

.... Of course PrEP doesn't stop transmission of other STD's, but HIV remains the biggie.  It's the only one you can't get rid of, as we all know.

I just read on the mainpage something different about HIV  being "the biggie" :

"April 16, 2014

Viral Hepatitis Kills More Europeans Than HIV by Tenfold[b/]"

http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/hepatitis_burden_1667_25476.shtml

[tednlou2]

I don't know how sound these studies were, but I remember the study that half of all gay men hooking up on social sites admit to having bareback sex.  And, those were the ones admitting it.  There was also that study/estimate that said HALF of all gay men now 22 will have HIV by age 50.  If that is a good estimate, then that is staggering.

So, should PrEP become the gay man's birth control pill?  As so many do with their teen daughters, should teen gay boys be offered "the pill?"  More and more gay teens are coming out early and having open discussions with family and friends.  The birth control pill is not without side-effects (sometimes serious, but mostly extremely safe) and that pill is pretty much the norm now.  There was a study that said Truvada as PrEP does not increase kidney toxicity. 

This isn't just about "partying."  Many are infected in relationships.  Gay couples ditching condoms is just a natural as heterosexual couples doing it.  The risk is just greater for the gay couple, when there is infidelity.  And, I believe the stats that ~80% of ALL relationships have infidelity at some point.  If PrEP is as safe and effective as I keep hearing, then perhaps it should become the new pill for gay teens and men.  If we will have half of the gay population infected, then any prevention is good. 

[pittman]

I remember back around 2001 first encountering pre-packaged baggies of meth, tenofovir and viagra called MTV during circuit events like The Black Party -- perhaps Mr. Weinstein is just confused.

That really is misleading.  Weinstein is not just saying it is used as a party drug, he is suggesting that is its intended purpose and should be completely discouraged as a preventative measure.

Putting meth, a birth control pill and ecstasy in a baggie at a teen rave would not make the other 12 million women using oral contraceptives party whores.

[Miss Philicia]

That really is misleading.  Weinstein is not just saying it is used as a party drug, he is suggesting that is its intended purpose and should be completely discouraged as a preventative measure.

Putting meth, a birth control pill and ecstasy in a baggie at a teen rave would not make the other 12 million women using oral contraceptives party whores.

#itwasajokehumorlessone

[pittman]

#itwasajokehumorlessone

I have to take even my pills with water, you can't expect me to to swallow your dry wit now.  <insert appropriate emoticon here>

[GSOgymrat]

If I was HIV- I'm not sure if I would want to take Truvada unless I was in a relationship and decided to stop using condoms. When I was single I was much too fearful of contracting STDs to not use a condom with casual sex partners. In fact, the big fear I had when I was single wasn't contracting HIV, because that seemed easily preventable, it was herpes because it is incurable and easy to transmit. Now with antibiotic resistant gonorrhea on the rise there is one more thing to worry about.

[zach]

sex is just bad, don't do it, everything will be alright

[tednlou2]

I read this on Facebook-- posted by a fellow member here.  Interesting article.

http://m.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/thenewcivilrights/#!/entry/yep-im-another-truvada-whore,536e7fc3025312186c0524b8

[mecch]

Thats a great article.  Yeah for the "truvada whores" - may they live long and stay HIV negative.
Down with slut shamers and down with that awful sounding AHF!  What a takedown.

I still feel this will save people from HIV, but its going to be a pandora's box of other STIs and this could really surprise a lot of people, who presently over-fixate on HIV as the only big bad cootie out there.

Hep C. Hep C. Hep C. 

and resistant bugaboos in the pipeline.

[Dan0]

Since this thread started, I've been noticing more and more the articles that sprout up about this. I wasn't reading them before because, frankly, I don't see the controversy. I just don't see what the huge deal is - everyone is going to have an opinion on something and mine is very simple......if it helps and you can afford it, then use it!  Some may become the proverbial 'party whore' but others may find this a reassuring.  It's not a blanket one size fits all - particularly not enough that anyone would get fixated on it.  You really can't control the behaviors some will associate with this resource. The potential marketing of it, now that is where I would have some issues but not with the end user.

It reminds me of the 'aspirin a day' regimen that may protect from heart attacks.  It very well MAY do some wonderful things but it isn't a confirmation letter to eat bacon on everything morning, noon and night, no exercise in the least and chain smoke three packs of Pall-Mall unfiltered a day! Heart's fine....everything else is shot to hell! Then again, if they do, well........you can lead a horse to water.....

Maybe the Dorothy Parker quip....."You can lead a whore to culture...but you can't make her think!"

[bmancanfly]

PrEP is the only "party drug" I didn't do.    Too bad.

Why anyone would want to stop someone from using this as a prevention tool is beyond me.

[Basquo]

I would love for my negative partner to take a pill that would make it possible for us to to shag each other, back and forth, all night long...

but I'm not about to approach him about taking a drug he doesn't need, and might give him some unpleasant side effects, just so I can finally nail him, all the way, without pulling out...

so can one of you ask him for me?

 

[Jeff G]

I would love for my negative partner to take a pill that would make it possible for us to to shag each other, back and forth, all night long...

but I'm not about to approach him about taking a drug he doesn't need, and might give him some unpleasant side effects, just so I can finally nail him, all the way, without pulling out...

so can one of you ask him for me?

 

I just posted the question on his FB wall .... just kidding LOL .

[aaware72]

I don't know how sound these studies were, but I remember the study that half of all gay men hooking up on social sites admit to having bareback sex.  And, those were the ones admitting it.  There was also that study/estimate that said HALF of all gay men now 22 will have HIV by age 50.  If that is a good estimate, then that is staggering.

That study that I saw said a that a person 18 now has a 2 in 5 chance of being infected by the time they are 40.  Needless to say that it scary still. 

[aaware72]

I signed it will you?

http://www.change.org/petitions/ahf-remove-weinstein?recruiter=6509407&utm_campaign=twitter_link_action_box&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition

[pittman]

I would love for my negative partner to take a pill that would make it possible for us to to shag each other, back and forth, all night long...

Um, are you still talking about Truvada? I'm pretty sure it's Viagra that helps one keep going all night long. . .

[pittman]

I read this on Facebook-- posted by a fellow member here.  Interesting article.

http://m.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/thenewcivilrights/#!/entry/yep-im-another-truvada-whore,536e7fc3025312186c0524b8

Interesting article. I wonder if there was an effective HIV vaccine, how that would change the arguments against PReP?  After all, just like the HPV and HEP vaccines, going condomless still puts you at risk for other STIs and yet I don't hear about HPV vaccine whores.

[tednlou2]

That study that I saw said a that a person 18 now has a 2 in 5 chance of being infected by the time they are 40.  Needless to say that it scary still.

Yeah, I've seen different figures used.  I've seen the age 22 by age 50 and the 18 by 40.  Perhaps the 50% mentions probably said "nearly half of all gay men."  Like you said, either way it is concerning and still talking about a large number of gay men. 

Btw, I have been curious, ever since I read that study that said Truvada as PrEP doesn't appear to be kidney risk.  Why would it be different from poz folks taking it and kidney issues seen?  Is it HIV, itself, that makes kidney injury more likely?   Is it that this is just one study and further studies may say something different?  I remember reading that kidney injury in poz patients was not seen as much in trials and early studies, as was found in the real world of use. 

[tednlou2]

Interesting article about stigma, but nothing we don't know.  Just thought it was interesting and good this is getting attention.  Well there was something I'm curious about from those who lived through those days.  The writer says the gay community was fairly united back in the 80's and early 90's.  I guess those who were negative thought it could very well happen to them or they didn't know whether they were infected, so that's the explanation?  Or, do you disagree with that take on the gay community.  I remember when I came out in 1993, there were plenty of gays saying, "That girl should have been more selective who she let in there."  All the while, I knew these people were barebacking, while casting judgement.  It does seem worst today, but that's the nature of the internet.  It seems to attract more hateful people.  Well, they are more likely to post in a comment section anyway. 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4856233

[AusShep]

...  Well there was something I'm curious about from those who lived through those days.  The writer says the gay community was fairly united back in the 80's and early 90's.  I guess those who were negative thought it could very well happen to them or they didn't know whether they were infected, so that's the explanation?  Or, do you disagree with that take on the gay community...

By 85 there was the HIV test, and by 82 or 83 everyone knew how it spread, oral was considered more of a potential risk then though.  I think for my first anonymous test it took 3 weeks of worrying and walking around with the pink slip in your wallet before you could get results.

I think the community was more united.  We had to fight for funding, people were dying horrible deaths, sunken faces, wasting, KS, and other skin issues were the obvious signs then, kids were kicked out of homes and schools, bio hazard signs and full protective gear was in place in the hospitals.  The early weird theories on poppers, condoms, foreign sperm, and other possible means of transmission fell away pretty fast, but since there was no cure, and so many people died within a year or two of diagnosis, the stigma and fear was huge, it took a united front and fighting by groups like Act Up! to get research money, prevention funding, and laws in place.  Universal precautions, ADA protection, etc came after the initial years, and we still don't have full LGBT employment protection...

[mecch]

  Or, do you disagree with that take on the gay community. 

It breaks my heart that the worst of HIV stigma comes from my own community: gay men. It wasn't always this way. It might surprise today's younger gay men to learn that there was very little HIV-related stigma between us during the early years of the crisis. If anything, I felt the opposite of stigma when I publicly disclosed my status in the late '80s. Gay men with HIV received communal love and support. Once the gospel of safe sex was firmly entrenched, even sexual shunning became rare. Maybe it was our numbers, with upwards of half of New York's and San Francisco's gay men being HIV-positive by 1985. Maybe it was because many of us couldn't hide it, as our HIV painfully manifested as AIDS. Maybe it was our communal fighting back, as we rose up against a government that was ignoring our suffering.

Regardless of the reasons, we felt like one community. We were all living with HIV, regardless of status. I realize this view is skewed. I lived in a city where the social norms were being heavily influenced by ACT UP and other community responses to the crisis. The beginnings of gay-on-gay HIV-related stigma could be easily found in other cities and towns back then. But now it seems to be the norm, regardless of location.

---

I think this is journalese and wobbly social history.  In my opinion, slut shaming is as old as Rome, when it's related to STIs, and in both the hetero and homo communities. I don't see radical shifts. I think the entire range of ignorance and stigma was present in the 80s just as it is now...

I was in my 20's in the 80's and lived in NY and SF.  Certainly there was love and support for people with AIDS.  And then, as you know, people had AIDS, and then then died. Its really not all that comparable to today. Because today we have HIV+ and HIV- people in the urban fabric and not that heaving dying off of the plague years.  There isn't all that much need by the general gay community in 2014 for "love and support" in same way.  Yes HIV+ people get sick. Yes some have AIDS.  But sorry, its not the same. In the 80's you could count on supporting more than one friend a year through his wrenching death.

Slut shaming was around in the 80s and it around today.  What is new today, which didn't exist in the 80s or 90s, is the quantity of attractive 20 yo - 50 yo HIV+ guys in the dating pool who are viable long-term lovers. 

There is an apples and oranges discussion to things .. essays saying HIV- guys not wanting to have sex with HIV+ guys.  First of all love and support through the plaque years doesn't mean everyone was fine sleeping with a person with AIDS.  Me and my buddies moved to SF and NYC from college towns and had the lucky timing and then the safe sex info and we didnt have HIV and we didn't date HIV+ guys  but we were friends with them. In the 80s I was the only HIV- guy who dated people with AIDS, in my circle. Guys with AIDS were shunned in the sheets. Not all, of course. but many. Just as it exists today. 
Gay men on the sex scene. and dating scene, are often very very rigid and particular what they look for.  In the 80s there were certain valued characteristics and others to be sure to avoid.  Just as their are today.  The "i am clean, UB2" is no more or less taudy and small-minded than the other deal-makers or breakers on the list. Too fat? Wrong color? Wrong salary? Wrong diploma? Small cock? etc etc etc

[Jeff G]

This was my experience . I have reflected back on this many times . I might add that I only found acceptance as a gay man out with my HIV status after moving from Alabama to Chicago . I think if I had stayed in Alabama I probably would have died from a broken heart long before HIV did its work .

Quote
It might surprise today's younger gay men to learn that there was very little HIV-related stigma between us during the early years of the crisis. If anything, I felt the opposite of stigma when I publicly disclosed my status in the late '80s. Gay men with HIV received communal love and support.

[J.R.E.]

Hi Ted,

Between 1983 and 1985, There was stigma being created by some, not many, within the gay community. So the author of the article was right by saying " Fairly United". 

To answer your question Ted,...  Yes, you had some in the bars, that would  say " Well what do you expect, he was fucking everyone" or "He was a hustler, it was his own damn fault." Or, " He got what he deserved"  That kind of talk didn't last too long, and when I think back at it, some of those making those comments had ended up becoming HIV positive.


We started seeing the first people getting sick around 1983. One minute, you had healthy people walking around. 4 months later, some of these same healthy people were walking around with canes, or in some cases, they were in wheelchairs, and 40 pounds lighter.

 We knew a few, that had amputations because of infections that were taking place. some lost an arm others a leg. Others just disappeared, never to be seen again, only to find out later, that they had died. Many wore long sleeve shirts, to cover the Kaposi.

Joe ( Killfoile) spoke quite well of the situation that was going in Detroit in that period of time, within the hospitals, and within the gay community.

In Clearwater, Florida, which in contrast to Detroit, was a speck on a map, death was ongoing, every week, every month, non stop. We never had a break from a funeral or memorial service.

Clearwater only had two bars, everyone knew each other. And we had a good size gay community.


 After the HIV test came out in 1985, Ed and I knew at least 2 people who killed themselves, One hung himself and was found in his garage, another shot himself. This was shortly after finding out they were positive.


And some of the youngsters ( not referring to you Ted), wonder why we LTS are mentally scarred.

When I tested positive in 1985, I was told to exit the Health Dept building, through the service/delivery entrance at the rear of the building. A nurse practitioner, ( Gloved and masked), walk me down a hallway to a back entrance door. They didn't want me to walk out through the same entrance I walked in.

I left, went to the bar, and had a few drinks, knowing full well I would not go back to that place again.

Thanks for posting that article Ted.



Ray

[zach]

this thread has been very thought provoking, i just wanted to thank yall... seriously

[mecch]

Just so you know Larry Kramer's thoughts on Truvada/PrEP:

"Anybody who voluntarily takes an antiviral every day has got to have rocks in their heads," Mr. Kramer said, describing the side effects of drugs he has taken. "There's something to me cowardly about taking Truvada instead of using a condom. You're taking a drug that is poison to you, and it has lessened your energy to fight, to get involved, to do anything.""Anybody who voluntarily takes an antiviral every day has got to have rocks in their heads," Mr. Kramer said, describing the side effects of drugs he has taken.


http://gawker.com/gay-icon-barbra-streisand-finds-gay-sex-distasteful-sa-1579531865

[pittman]

Just so you know Larry Kramer's thoughts on Truvada/PrEP. [. . . ]

Eh.  His opinion holds no special weight on the topic for me.

[vertigo]

Peter Staley's rejoinder to Larry Kramer regarding PrEP:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/05/22/peter_staley_talks_about_truvada_hiv_and_stigma.html

[zach]

how much of this is just larry being larry? he's always been a lightening rod, he's always been offensive

i kind of feel like all sides here have a bit of truth. and the entire debate has been hijacked by the media doing what do. they love this, kramer pissing off the community, and us turning on a pillar we've all stood on (many, without knowing it)

seemingly opposing statements can all be true at the same time

truvada is becoming a party drug

truvada is effective as prep

some will take it responsibly, and still protect themselves against other std's, some will not

some, will be whores. get offended all you want. everyone here has been to gay clubs. lets not pretend when we came from that reality

so how do we reconcile these contradictions?