• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

HIV prevention pill Truvada is 100% effective in new real world study

Status
Not open for further replies.
Truvada or more broadly PrEP, or Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis is an amazing thing to happen for HIV prevention.

You're essentially taking some of the same HIV medication that people actually infected with HIV have to take. And the drugs actually stop you from becoming infected with HIV. It's somewhat simlar to the idea birth control pill, that you have to take it everyday. Much the same way birth control pills continued to improve with lower and lower and more effective doses, I hope the same will happen with PrEP drugs.

Right now with Truvada, if you're taking it you have to get your blood work done every 3 months to check your liver and other functions. The every 3 month thing is not a requirement for any woman I know that's currently taking birth conrol.

So, it's a great first step and governments should be working to offer it to high risk idividuals at no or little cost. And I look forward to the next generation of PrEP drugs to be released, hopefully, very soon. I hear they are working on a PrEP injection, that only needs to be injected a few times a year.
 
Envelope said:
enjoy your syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, HPV, etc, etc

but at least you won't get HIV


also PrEP is ridic. expensive from what i remember
Click to expand...

Not sure how accurate this is, but it's Roughly $200 a week in Ontario, Canada from what my doctor told me. Probably about $150 per week in USD then. For what it does it's understandable, but I would never be able to afford it personally.
 
CDX said:
Truvada or more broadly PrEP, or Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis is an amazing thing to happen for HIV prevention.

You're essentially taking some of the same HIV medication that people actually infected with HIV have to take. And the drugs actually stop you from becoming infected with HIV. It's somewhat simlar to the idea birth control pill, that you have to take it everyday. Much the same way birth control pills continued to improve with lower and lower and more effective doses, I hope the same will happen with PrEP drugs.

Right now with Truvada, if you're taking it you have to get your blood work done every 3 months to check your liver and other functions. The every 3 month thing is not a requirement for any woman I know that's currently taking birth conrol.

So, it's a great first step and governments should be working to offer it to high risk idividuals at no or little cost. And I look forward to the next generation of PrEP drugs to be released, hopefully, very soon. I hear they are working on a PrEP injection, that only needs to be injected a few times a year.
Click to expand...

A safer form of Truvada is actually already expected to be approved later this year or early 2016. It has the less toxic form of tenofoivir with less kidney and bone density side effects.

ZombiePlatypus said:
Wow, that's great. Like...a continuous supply?
Click to expand...

Probably. It will probably stipulate that you check in and see a doctor every couple months and evaluate your risks so that's a good thing in of itself.
 
CDX said:
Truvada or more broadly PrEP, or Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis is an amazing thing to happen for HIV prevention.

You're essentially taking some of the same HIV medication that people actually infected with HIV have to take. And the drugs actually stop you from becoming infected with HIV. It's somewhat simlar to the idea birth control pill, that you have to take it everyday. Much the same way birth control pills continued to improve with lower and lower and more effective doses, I hope the same will happen with PrEP drugs.

Right now with Truvada, if you're taking it you have to get your blood work done every 3 months to check your liver and other functions. The every 3 month thing is not a requirement for any woman I know that's currently taking birth conrol.

So, it's a great first step and governments should be working to offer it to high risk idividuals at no or little cost. And I look forward to the next generation of PrEP drugs to be released, hopefully, very soon. I hear they are working on a PrEP injection, that only needs to be injected a few times a year.
Click to expand...

What I'm getting from this is that it's a great help for couples in which one person is seropositive, but it's neither a cure not a vaccine for hiv, and certainly not a replacement for condoms at all, people should keep that in mind at all times
 
And of course I'll be too old by the time of the free love Renaissance. We can only be, what, 30-50 years from figuring all of this out.
 
Mii said:
And of course I'll be too old by the time of the free love Renaissance. We can only be, what, 30-50 years from figuring all of this out.
Click to expand...

Ah but then you can just get the rejunevation treatment and look like the 20-something version of yourself once more.

And that also means you might be banging some sweet old great-grandmother when you get in on that free love.
 
Saying truvada is bad because it encorages risky behavior is as dumb as saying that condoms should not be taught and encouraged to teenagers because it encourages them to have sex.
 
this is great news but people view HIV with taboo eyes, cancer is a much worse disease, terrible to battle and incredible painful if you have no salvation
 
Envelope said:
enjoy your syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, HPV, etc, etc

but at least you won't get HIV


also PrEP is ridic. expensive from what i remember
Click to expand...

You can cure Syphilis, Gonorrhea and Chlamydia and there are at least two Herpes vaccines in Phase II trials. I'm not saying I approve of taking more risk with less condom usage, but I can certainly see why many people do it. HIV is not longer a death sentence for the vast majority of people. By most studies you can contract the disease in your 20's can live to be in your 70's with the proper treatment. I do think it's irresponsible for people to have unprotected sex and transmit STD's but there is a certain level of risk to life that has been removed due to HIV treatment.
 
titiklabingapat said:
Weinstein always had this fascination about people's choices for some reason that borders on obsession. He lead the charge with requiring condoms in porn sets as well.
Click to expand...

You say that like it's past tense. It isn't. He's still leading it, and they're still in courts over Measure B, and they just got something placed on the statewide ballot about it.
 
The transition of AIDS being fatal to it becoming a chronic, manageable illness has been incredible on its own. This pill is amazing science.
 
CornBurrito said:
Given how many STD scares there have been in porn, am I supposed to find that requirement absurd?
Click to expand...
They have those scares because the mainstream studios had a voluntary system in place - the issue with regulating this is that it benefits low budget operations even more.
 
I watched a VICE doc on this. What baffled me was the gay guy who took Truvada and only had unprotected sex. He kept blabbing about how it lifted this weight out of his shoulder since he didn't have this constant fear about HIV every time he fucked. I guess he didn't get the memo that this doesn't protect against other STDs.

Hopefully the price of this drug goes down because it's expensive as hell right now and most people who are HIV+ are from impoverished areas.
 
titiklabingapat said:
It's mostly the CEO. He probably got HIV (if he is HIV+) because he was into the party drug scene and is now projecting whatever baggage and issues he has on the whole foundation. Kinda like those born again Christians that became vehemently religious after they dabbled in some sort of 'sin' (be it being married and divorced many times, drug addiction,gambling). This is purely conjecture on my part, though.
Click to expand...
I dont support his stance on PReP, but this is a gross post. Maki g up that he's HIV+ and that he got it from the party scene while also admitting youre making it up... come the fuck on. Critize him for his words, dont do this shit.
 
kirblar said:
They have those scares because the mainstream studios had a voluntary system in place - the issue with regulating this is that it benefits low budget operations even more.
Click to expand...

And that's a problem, why?

STI infections are a public health concern. Regulation of any sort is inevitably going to benefit some people more than others. If you think the government should be able to mandate vaccines for kids or put fluoride in water I see no reason why you'd have a bone to pick with forced condom usage in porn. But I guess when bareback porn is at stake "FREEDOM" becomes the cool thing.
 
This is literally the first thread I read after watching The Normal Heart just now.

What an effective way to snap me out of the funk that movie put me in. It was good but tough to sit through.
 
CornBurrito said:
And that's a problem, why?

STI infections are a public health concern. Regulation of any sort is inevitably going to benefit some people more than others. If you think the government should be able to mandate vaccines for kids or put fluoride in water I see no reason why you'd have a bone to pick with forced condom usage in porn. But I guess when bareback porn is at stake "FREEDOM" becomes the cool thing.
Click to expand...
Because these places are being pushed out of filming there due to the regulations. Straight porn without condoms sells better. Pushing them out of the region also pushes them away from where the voluntary centralized testing the porn companies use is located.

This regulation doesn't result in condoms used in straight poirn, it results in porn not being filmed in LA, which is a net negative due to what that means for the industry and actors.

edit: the distinction between Bareback and Condom porn has never even really existed in Straight porn. That's a gay-only thing (And I think you can point to Truvada as a big reason in why it's come back recently outside of the seedy niche it used to occupy.)
 
I believe that this drug is currently only used for high risk populations that are in danger of becoming HIV+ correct? And that those that are HIV+ take a different form of HAART therapy.

I can see why some people would think this could be a "free love" type situation, but I would hope that it wouldn't become some sort of rampant ill-used drug that could lead to the formation of highly resistant types of HIV much like the rampant use of some antibiotics have lead to the formation of multi-drug resistant bacteria. I will say that this is great news in the realm of virology and public health though.
 
kirblar said:
Because these places are being pushed out of filming there due to the regulations. Straight porn without condoms sells better. Pushing them out of the region also pushes them away from where the voluntary centralized testing the porn companies use is located.

This regulation doesn't result in condoms used in straight poirn, it results in porn not being filmed in LA, which is a net negative due to what that means for the industry and actors.
Click to expand...

It is almost like you can make similar arguments about any form of regulation. Why bother having any regulations?
 
CornBurrito said:
It is almost like you can make similar arguments about any form of regulation. Why bother having any regulations?
Click to expand...
Yes, you can. Not all regulation is good or has net positive effects. (Rent Control's the classic example of regulation that goes horribly wrong.)
 
kirblar said:
Yes, you can. Not all regulation is good or has net positive effects. (Rent Control's the classic example of regulation that goes horribly wrong.)
Click to expand...

For some reason I doubt the two posters who are so concerned about the "condoms in porn" regulation are concerned because of their libertarian anti-regulation fervor. But I'll let them speak for themselves rather than let you make up reasons for them.
 
CornBurrito said:
For some reason I doubt the two posters who are so concerned about the "condoms in porn" regulation are concerned because of their libertarian anti-regulation fervor. But I'll let them speak for themselves rather than let you make up reasons for them.
Click to expand...
Nothing I've posted has a thing to do with dumb libertarian anti-any-regulation dogma.
 
Al-ibn Kermit said:
If it has 100% effectiveness with perfect use, it could allow HIV+ to have much more free lives. They would still have to find a partner willing to take it of course but that's a lot better than being afraid you'll give someone a potentially deadly disease.

Then maybe in a hundred years we won't have to worry about HIV anymore than the bubonic plague with just a handful of infections a year. That does require a massive amount of money to cover people in the developing world, looks like a one month supply of the drug is over $1,000.
Click to expand...

HIV+ people who take their medication on time without slacking off can't transmit the disease even without their partners taking these pills. It's called "undetectable" level where there is so little of the virus inside the body that doctors can't even detect it. This combined with PrEP will yield you 100% protection from HIV even when practicing condomless sex. The problem is, HIV is becoming a less of a problem to the point where "high" risk population don't care anymore. This made other STDs thrive to the point where it's staggering. Back when they discovered what transmitted HIV, people began using condoms because HIV equaled a slow painful death at the time. With protection, other STD transmission dropped off a cliff.
 
EDIT: Totally forgot to talk about the topic. I hope that people take them how they are supposed to, because it worries me that new strains of cART resistant HIV strains can rise. Don't know if that's possible with this therapeutical plan.

GaimeGuy said:
Nearly everyone gets HPV, or has some firm of herpes. HIV is scary because it directly targets the immune system
Click to expand...

I'd say HPV is scary because it can give cancer to women as well in men if they are unlucky to be infected with certain strains.

Yes, you can get penis cancer people.

Knoxcore said:
You can cure Syphilis, Gonorrhea and Chlamydia and there are at least two Herpes vaccines in Phase II trials.
Click to expand...

You can cure Syphilis if the person realizes he or she has it. It's easy to do for pregnant woman, since they should get tests for a wide arrange of diseases, but people who ignore the initial manifestation can get to an advanced stage of Syphilis.
 
Sounds good, but STI numbers are crazy, even if the findings suggest that it's actually just because of regular checking.
 
mantidor said:
What worries me is that 42% to 92% other studies.

Basically even if I ever use truvada I still would use condoms.
Click to expand...

For sure. Asides from the other (awful) STIs out there, the lesson from AIDS ought to have been that a new superbug can appear any time and spread like wildfire.

I'm of a generation that was basically conditioned to be absolutely terrified of HIV/AIDS, so I'm tempted to investigate Truvada as simply another defense alongside the standards already there. But I wonder about side effects or the like...need to read more about it.
 
Need this without the side effects for my SO. She deals with HIV and Hep patients, and she even had a needle stick once.

Would love to have something that they could actually give her.
 
Vanillalite said:
Need this without the side effects for my SO. She deals with HIV and Hep patients, and she even had a needle stick once.

Would love to have something that they could actually give her.
Click to expand...

What side effects? It's for preventative measures for high risk individuals or sexually active people in certain demo's. I'm sure your SO could get it.
 
Clearly some of the people in this study need a reality check given that half of them got an STI other than HIV.
 
I asked my wife about this (pharmacist) and she gave me the most complicated answer ever. All I understood is that its a pre-existing drug that is used to treat HIV and prevents replication of the HIV virus, but that it has had a known off-label use as pre-exposure prophylaxis for a while now.
 
CornBurrito said:
Given how many STD scares there have been in porn, am I supposed to find that requirement absurd?
Click to expand...

Of the actual "STD scares" that have occurred over the past decade, I believe maybe only once has anyone actually caught anything from any of the people in question (one performer sued another one who faked his test because he had syphilis, but I can't remember if the lawsuit was just because he faked it, or because he faked it and she caught it). The scares are literally just one person turns up positive for something, the industry shuts itself down, and it turns out the person caught whatever they got in their private life and didn't pass it on to anyone. The truth is that even with condoms in porn, those same things would happen with about the same frequency, because these laws can't regulate what performers do when they aren't on set. And there's a legit argument that because of how often they're tested, adult performers actually have a lower rate of most STD infections than the general population.

I honestly could care less if there is or isn't a condom in a scene. The reason the law is a shitty law is because it would be a waste of time and money that could be better used doing something else (in fact, the money aspect of it is the reason it never got past the state senate when he tried to have it drafted as a bill for the entire state).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Hello cyberpunk2077 real life
6
100
Uberman77 replied
The Real Wage Gap
2 3
107
784
YCoCg replied
100 years
2
50
1K
Soodanim replied
TimeOut’s Best Cities in the World 2026
2
80
1K
LyricalShrike replied
Cringe as fuck and gave me HIV
23
840
Toons replied
Top Bottom