The HIV prevention pill

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 3:11 AM GMT
    I've seen a few articles buried in subsections of the major national papers about Truvada, the HIV prevention pill that can reduce the chances of transmission by 90 per cent. Here's my thoughts:

    1. Why does it seem like this miraculous breakthrough has a reception of "meh" in the gay community? I did a search for it on this webboard and almost nothing came up. No one is talking about it.

    2. If an HIV prevention pill became common, would barebacking become more popular? Personally, even with HIV out of the way, the idea of sex without condoms is frightening. I just picture something like the 70s where everyone just sleeps around, creating the perfect condition for another disease to emerge.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 3:27 AM GMT
    1. Probably because the side effects are fucking CRAZY icon_eek.gif

    New or worsening kidney problems: If you have had kidney problems or take other medicines that can cause kidney problems, your healthcare provider should do regular blood tests to check your kidneys. SAY WHAT!

    Bone problems: Lab tests show changes in the bones of patients treated with VIREAD (tenofovir DF), a medicine in TRUVADA. Some patients have developed thinning of the bones (osteopenia), which could lead to fractures.
    GOD DAMN!

    Changes in body fat: Changes in the distribution of body fat have been seen in some people taking TRUVADA. The long term health effect of this is not known. Wonderful, an unknown

    Common side effects include:

    The most common side effects of TRUVADA when taken with other anti-HIV-1 medicines to treat HIV infection are diarrhea, dizziness, nausea, headache, fatigue, abnormal dreams, sleeping problems, rash, and depression. In clinical trials of TRUVADA taken alone for pre-exposure prophylaxis, the most common side effects reported were stomach area (abdomen) pain, headache, and decreased weight.

    2. Yeah I think I'll stick to a good ol condom where the side effects are NOTHING
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 3:37 AM GMT
    Hmm... I wasn't even thinking of the side effects, just $13,900 US price tag a year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 3:38 AM GMT
    Woolsocks saidHmm... I wasn't even thinking of the side effects, just $13,900 US price tag a year.


    Well there is that too
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 3:46 AM GMT
    Take something that can kill you to prevent getting something that can kill you. And pay a hefty price for it.

    Makes perfect sense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 5:06 AM GMT
    Truvada is well known for causing SEVERE kidney damage. I know, I turned out to be one of the unlucky ones. I will be on dialysis by the time I am 60.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 5:17 AM GMT
    This news is still epic... epic in the way that the BMW Hydrogen 7 series was epic. BMW proved that a car can operate on both gasoline and hydrogen with no changes required to the engine—the car can switch to hydrogen in an instant and have the same amount of horsepower. The downside is that it costs $60 in hydrogen to drive 30 miles, and since it's a 7 series, comes at a hefty price tag itself.

    My point is, the car was not designed to be sold to the public at large. It was an example. It was proof of the possibilities. It would not be practical for anyone to take Truvada as a preventative measure. Between the cost and the side effects, it's almost laughable as a preventative means. The epic part comes in when we realize that, from the countless hours and dollars that have been devoted to research to end HIV, there is finally a chemical mechanism by which we can somewhat reliably prevent the virus from successfully attaching itself to a human host.

    Hopefully, studies of Truvada's ability to prevent infection will allow researchers to learn more about how it does so. With this breakthrough, we are one step closer to a vaccine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 5:20 AM GMT
    Okay, I had no idea about this study. I have been taking Truvada now for 2 years and not once have I heard an article about it reducing the transmission of the virus by 90 percent. If those articles are true that's great; but as far as I am concerned the rumors in those articles are not true!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 5:23 AM GMT
    ScoobyDoobyDude saidThis news is still epic... epic in the way that the BMW Hydrogen 7 series was epic. BMW proved that a car can operate on both gasoline and hydrogen with no changes required to the engine—the car can switch to hydrogen in an instant and have the same amount of horsepower. The downside is that it costs $60 in hydrogen to drive 30 miles, and since it's a 7 series, comes at a hefty price tag itself.

    My point is, the car was not designed to be sold to the public at large. It was an example. It was proof of the possibilities. It would not be practical for anyone to take Truvada as a preventative measure. Between the cost and the side effects, it's almost laughable as a preventative means. The epic part comes in when we realize that, from the countless hours and dollars that have been devoted to research to end HIV, there is finally a chemical mechanism by which we can somewhat reliably prevent the virus from successfully attaching itself to a human host.

    Hopefully, studies of Truvada's ability to prevent infection will allow researchers to learn more about how it does so. With this breakthrough, we are one step closer to a vaccine.


    The point I want to make is that because Truvada was the drug used out of a class of drugs called Nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors, it is getting all this attention as being the heaven sent drug of them all... It's not. There are other drugs within that class that do the same damn thing and they DON'T cause severe Kidney Disease. Truvada needs to be taken off the shelf entirely. As more and more victims report their findings, it eventually will be taken off the shelfs. Truvada has done fantastic marketing through doctors all these years, that is why it gets so much raving attention now. It doesn't deserve it! They know the side effects are showing up more and more as time goes on. Shame on them!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 5:24 AM GMT
    cjs176 saidOkay, I had no idea about this study. I have been taking Truvada now for 2 years and not once have I heard an article about it reducing the transmission of the virus by 90 percent. If those articles are true that's great; but as far as I am concerned the rumors in those articles are not true!

    It was just approved by the FDA as the first HIV prevention drug.

    http://news.yahoo.com/fda-approves-truvada-first-hiv-prevention-drug-222416700.html?_esi=1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 5:25 AM GMT
    cjs176 saidOkay, I had no idea about this study. I have been taking Truvada now for 2 years and not once have I heard an article about it reducing the transmission of the virus by 90 percent. If those articles are true that's great; but as far as I am concerned the rumors in those articles are not true!


    Don't skip out on blood tests especially after three years of continuously taking Truvada. It caused me surprise kidney disease in my fourth year of taking it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 6:23 AM GMT
    For Truvada to work as a prophylactic to prevent HIV transmission, a number of things have to occur: First, the drug has to be taken every day, religiously. If you miss even two days a month you interrupt its capacity to suppress HIV and , in turn, create the conditions for a drug resistant strain.

    Second, you need to pay for it, and it ain't cheap.

    Thirdly, you need to bear the consequences of health side effects which are not minor in many cases.

    That's why it's not making headline news as the pill that made HIV/AIDS history.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 6:54 AM GMT
    UglyAmerican saidFor Truvada to work as a prophylactic to prevent HIV transmission, a number of things have to occur: First, the drug has to be taken every day, religiously. If you miss even two days a month you interrupt its capacity to suppress HIV and , in turn, create the conditions for a drug resistant strain.

    Second, you need to pay for it, and it ain't cheap.

    Thirdly, you need to bear the consequences of health side effects which are not minor in many cases.

    That's why it's not making headline news as the pill that made HIV/AIDS history.


    Personally, I have taken the pill every single day within a 24 hour time period for the last two years when I started it. With a good insurance plan, co-payment card and switch to mail in prescription one year of pills now only cost me $100. Finally, I cannot truly say this for all people taking the medication but for me I have experienced absolutely no side effects from this pill; at least not for the time being. I still make the necessary doctor visits and bloodwork tests. Even with all of that said, I still do not believe that Truvada is the "Miracle" drug that can prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 10:18 AM GMT
    I don't really know anything about the new findings, but I've been taking Truvada in conjunction with Norvir and Reyataz (used to take Kaletra which gave me the shits) since 2006 and I'm doing fine so far. Undetectable.

    I don't think people should be careless regardless of what the new claims are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2012 10:59 AM GMT
    Woolsocks: I've seen a few articles buried in subsections of the major national papers about Truvada, the HIV prevention pill that can reduce the chances of transmission by 90 per cent. Here's my thoughts:

    1. Why does it seem like this miraculous breakthrough has a reception of "meh" in the gay community? I did a search for it on this webboard and almost nothing came up. No one is talking about it...

    jockfever: Medicine, like everything else lately, is becoming politicized. This news doesn't exactly fit the Lib template.

    If a drug like this were developed and approved under Obamacare, there would probably be bigger headlines and maybe some dancing in the streets.

    The world looks to the US drug companies for breakthroughs. Big pharma is a villain of the Left, yet innovation and research are two of the first victims of socialized medicine. Take your pick.

    Anyone who hasn't heard doctors complaining that England's NHS is hostile to innovation hasn't been listening.

    Last but not least, a prominent Republican, Donald Rumsfeld, demonized by the Left, was or is reportedly associated with the company which developed Truvada.







  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2012 8:40 PM GMT
    Probably because anything that's "revolutionary" in the world of medicine always needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

    Anything that Big Pharma makes these days gets practically rubberstamped by the FDA, even if its side effects are immediate death.

    I would be cautious of ANY new pill.
  • jim_sf

    Posts: 2094

    Jul 22, 2012 8:58 PM GMT
    Also, the claims of awesome effectiveness were limited to vaginal sex. Truvada is only 42% more effective at preventing transmission in gay men having anal sex.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2012 9:13 PM GMT
    love_yourself.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2012 9:14 PM GMT
    Woolsocks saidI've seen a few articles buried in subsections of the major national papers about Truvada, the HIV prevention pill that can reduce the chances of transmission by 90 per cent. Here's my thoughts:

    1. Why does it seem like this miraculous breakthrough has a reception of "meh" in the gay community? I did a search for it on this webboard and almost nothing came up. No one is talking about it.

    2. If an HIV prevention pill became common, would barebacking become more popular? Personally, even with HIV out of the way, the idea of sex without condoms is frightening. I just picture something like the 70s where everyone just sleeps around, creating the perfect condition for another disease to emerge.


    That class of drug to fight HIV is nothing new.
    What's new is the attempt for some big pharma to sell it to non HIV positive persons. It's a larger market.
    What's blowing my mind is the FDA accepting the drug application, as condoms are both more efficient and with far less potential side effects.
    I'm really, really curious about the market study witch convinced pharma to spend money in getting application for the drug. It has to show large enough population to make benefits.

    Still, it won't protect against any STD other that HIV, won't protect better than condom, and the side effects can potentially kill you if you are vulnerable to them.

    What's the point ?