rawfuckr

There's never a zero probability on anything. The only way not to get HIV is to abstain from sex. But given the OP was willing to just get HIV so we could fuck raw, I'd say 99% less chances is pretty damn good.

www.prepfacts.org pop a pill a day, fuck raw like a maniac, never get HIV

I think the very essential core of it is a split between those folks who understand the wonders of raw fucking vs those who don't. The folks that have not experienced raw fucking or for whom condoms work ok can't start understanding why anyone would not use condoms and go through the complications of PrEP. For everyone else, the majority I'd say, condoms just suck, and anything that helps to fuck raw in a safer maner without having to put barrier plastics around the sex event its an absolutely plus and welcome.

While the reply you got was unwarranted your profile does come across a little bit pushy. You may want to change things a bit, like " I WILL ASK " for a "I would like to ask your VL/CD4 count for a study I'm in if possible"...

BarebackRT now has a 'neg+PrEP' status. There are 173 folks in California and 66 in SF that have changed their profiles to Neg+PrEP. I've been wondering if there are people out there who will lie about this when they are actually poz or simply not on PrEP. Not sure what the motivations would be, but looking around these forums with all this 'gifting' business I'd assume there are actually out there? How common you think they are?

I've had gonorrhea and chlamydia in my butt and neither time I experienced any symptoms.

Just to buck the trend, sloppy holes suck. There's nothing like fucking a tight hole and working your way in it, then seeding it exclusively with your cum. Not really into 'sloppy seconds' here....

I talk to all my friends about it. I have this one friend who says he is just BBing with guys 'he knows' are negative and that he doesn't need it. It's really fustrating because I know he's next in line to seroconvert. He's afraid of side effects and stuff. Another best buddy seroconverted last year after someone went stealth on him. He was very good using condoms but even then someone pull it out and shot a heavy poz load in him and pozzed him. PrEP was available at this time but he deemed it not necessary because 'he' was using condoms. I quote the 'he' because no one seems to mention that condoms have to be worn by the top and the protection comes from someone else doing something. PrEP is something YOU can do to protect your very own health.

What side effects do you think are having? Had not heard this before. Seemed like the standard to stop was 4 weeks of PrEP without risky events to emulate a PEP protocol. Anyone has any idea what this 3 day rule could be based on?

You need a new doctor. NAAT gonorrhea tests are very sensitive and most likely to pick up the very minimal amounts of bacteria if any is present. Just make sure you give them a 'dirty' urine sample. Preferably first morning urine, and if not, >1 hour wait time. As you are it, check your mouth and your butt if necessary. Your doctor is probably thinking of a bacteria culture which is indeed hit or miss. NAAT checks directly for the DNA of the bacteria so is a lot more precise. The fact that you are asymptomatic is irrelevant. I've had both gonorrhea and chlamydia in every hole of my body and it was always a surprise to test positive because I didn't have any symptoms. Actually I think it's mostly BS that even doctors talk about 'having symptoms' to get anything checked. Having asymtompatic STDs is extremely common, and everyone should get checked if there has been sexual activity that warrants it.

Numbers seem just fine to me. It's 37% undetectable of all those who are infected. Half of those infected don't even know they are poz, so you have a 50% there. Then some of those poz who are aware, are not on meds, most likely because lots of providers are still using the 'wait for low CD4 count' rule. They you have the rest who is treated and can get to UD, about 37%. Sounds about right.

The study in europe is sort of looking into this. Just having the poz guy be undetectable has so far conferred complete protection for the negative partner even if they were not on PrEP. If you add PrEP to the mix, it just seems impossible that anyone would seroconvert if poz is undetectable on drugs and neg is on PrEP.

Truvada is becoming a barebacker's dream? http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1884529 Taking Truvada produced statistically significant reductions in HSV-2 infections.

You can peruse through the article carefully, and you'll see that they are just looking at the drug level free floating in the blood. It is a known fact that TDF/FTC drug levels in blood are NOT a good indicator of how good someone is taking the drug. The real levels that matter are the levels of TDF inside the cells (PBMC levels) and sadly this study didn't measure those. There are many reasons why this study could be showing people seroconverting with high levels in blood. For example, the while coat effect, where the participant takes the pill just the day before the study visit but he's not a good adherer. Also, TDF levels seem to peak rapidly in blood, you reach high levels in a mere hours after taking the pill, but it takes up to 7 days to get into strong protective levels in PBMC cells. High levels in blood can't really tell you that much about adherence other than the person took it recently. iPrEX did do PBMC testing in a subset of the study participants. That's when some smart folks decided to take neg folks people and having them take the pill on-site 2,4, and 7 times per week. No questions about adherence here. Then measured their TDF PBMC levels (http://goo.gl/kCY3zp) and compared to those observed in iPrEX. It's from this study that the now famous 'Truvada is 99% effective' quote comes from. This is still an 'after the fact' study, but iPrEX has looked at effectivity from different angles and pretty much all of them reach the +90% mark with daily dosing. Something overlooked is that just having even the minimum detectable level of TDF in blood would yield +90% effectivity. If I recall they can detect TDF even taken 2 weeks before, so its remarkable that just having some of it in your system would decrease your chances so much. In all, it just 'seems' PrEP is very effective to stop HIV transmission. If its 90-99% even on daily adherers, we just don't know with certainty, and thus the original question. I think only time will tell.

This is true. Most third generation HIV antibody tests will turn positive for 90% of folks in the first month.

He was obviously HIV positive undetectable, therefore the 'I'm good' claim. You are really fine and if he was undetectable there was no chance for you to get HIV from him anyway. But as others have mention, you should consider PrEP ASAP, an also make sure you can engage in a conversation about their HIV status, BEFORE sex happens.

It's been about two years now that PrEP has been out. I wonder if there is actually someone who it didn't work for them? Everyone says its 99% effective if you take it daily but I wonder if there is actually anyone out there who got HIV even when taking it daily... Actually, I'm sorta waiting for someone to announce that there's a strain of HIV that's Truvada resistant. BUT - I don't know that the strain would get very far. We're talking about a group of people who are tested every 3 months - so it would be detected early, and they're a group that's happy to take meds - so they'd probably start treatment immediately - meaning any Truvada resistant strain won't get very far - UNLESS - some top with that strain makes it his goal to infect as many Truvada Whores as possible. What's interesting about that scenario is that he could disclose that he's neg and many guys on PrEP would still have sex with him 'cause they think they're protected. So there would be no legal ramifications for his actions.

As a bottom it bothers me if the top can't perform. What's the point? I don't have any problem per-se with guys not being able to get hard. There are many other things that can be done sexually. But if you are advertising as a top be ready to perform. I'm assuming you've looked into it what you are not getting hard? there maybe some medical underlying condition that's making things worse.

I didn't realize it had been two months. It really doesn't sound very plausible this would be syphilis. The antibody test would have picked it up by now. Have you thought it could be a herpes sore? If it hurts a bit it may just be that. They can test for those too but test is expensive although usually covered by insurance. They Swab the sore and send it to the lab. Blood tests for herpes are pretty much useless.

I don't want to be a downer but according to this ( http://www.rainbow-project.org/sh/syphilis ) it may take 2 to 90 days for blood syphilis antibody test to turn positive.. it takes a while for your body to produce antibodies to Syphilis. Seems like you you should check in a couple of months to see if you are in the clear. If it turns positive, penicilin should take care of it right away. Another option is that you get a NAAT syphilis test of that chancre, that would be very conclusive either way, but for that you need someone to swab carefully the chancres while they are still there. Good luck.

Your copay depends on the plan you have. i have an ACA plan and my copays are usually $3 for generics, $5 for brand name drugs. My plan is hard to get though, so for regular folks the silver level copays are $20 for generics and $50 for name drugs after a $250 yearly deductible, which is fine because Gilead will pay for most of it, all of it after the first month. For a platinum plan you'd pay $15 per Truvada prescription, no deductibles. This is Kaiser in California. You just have to look at what's the tier where Truvada is in (Kaiser is tier 2) and what the prices for that tier are. If you sign up for Kaiser, you have to use Kaiser for everything. From lab work to pharmacy, you have to use their labs and their pharmacies. I personally don't care where I get my drugs, is the same to me. Their mailing program for their pharmacy is actually super convenient and you can get your drugs in the mail using the internet or a phone app very easily. If you have to get your drugs in the pharmacy you have to physically go to one of their pharmacies. Their lab turnaround time is also spectacular and you get test results in your phone app sometimes in a couple of hours after the blood drawn. Take a look at my main post about Kaiser and PrEP to know more about the costs. It's more than just the Truvada RX.

I get this asked often so I'm going to write it down here for those interested. This is for Kaiser in California, specially in San Francisco where I am. The Protocol -------------- Kaiser is a solid choice for PrEP. They have a 'protocol' setup for administering PrEP and they are sort of strict about it. 1) You first go to your PCP, although you can probably try to just message them through the online system. He/She'll refer you to the HIV specialists. 2) With the HIV specialist you'll have an 'assesment visit' where they'll determine if you are a good candidate for PrEP. I'm sure that most people here will, but essentially if you say you are getting fucked bare you are in. 3) Before the first prescription is issued you'll have to do comprehensive testing that includes: creatinine clearance, gonhorrea and chlamydia(RNA tests), syphilis, HIV(PCR first test, regular antibody after), HepC(just first test), phosphorus, urinalysis, ALT liver levels(just once). If HIV is clear you'll be issued a one 1 month prescription with 2 refills. 4) For the first three months they want you to go back every month and get tested for HIV and STDs. They will monitor this and if you don't go back to get tested it may raise questions about your adherence to the program. The first three months you get tested every month, and then the frequency goes down to once every three months. At that moment they only require you to get tested every 3 months but you can do more often if you wish. I'm assuming they do all to assess the patients commitment to PrEP. Given that Truvada is so expensive they probably don't want to give it out like candy. It may sound like a lot of hoopla but they make it easy and painless. Even once a month testing is just not a big deal, and if you have any questions they are just online message away. The costs ----------- These are examples using prices from individual ACA plans of 2014 California. Silver and Platinum level prices are quoted. In terms of costs you have to be aware that its not just the cost of Truvada, you'll have to pay copays for the following in a year: - Initial PCP visit for referral ($45 silver, $20 platinum) (maybe free if you get referral asking through online portal) - Initial visit with HIV doctor ($65 silver, $40 platinum) - First three months of testing lab copay($45 x 3 silver, $20 x 3 platinum) - Recurrent three month testing lab copay ($45 x 3 silver, $20 x 3 platinum) - Truvada RX ( $50 x 11 silver + $250, $15 x 12 platinum ) TOTAL: $380 + $800(RX) silver, $180 + $180(RX) platinum Given that the RX component can be mostly reimbursed by Gilead usually the silver plan is the 'perfect' plan for PrEP here in california. Depends of course on other health factors you may have. Silver has about a 25% cheaper premium so you have to do number crunching there. If you have questions let me know.

My current pharmacy benefits are provided by Kaiser and when I went to them with my Gilead Co-pay assistance card for Truvada PrEP they laughed at my face and said they don't participate in copay programs. This doesn't mean that you don't get reimbursement, it's just a little bit more involved: 1) Call Gilead copay assistance, the phone is in the card, and ask for a 'reimbursement form' 2) Make sure you keep the prescription label in the Truvada bottle, and the payment receipt to the pharmacy 3) fill out form with RX number, prescription label and receipt. 4) Mail form After a few weeks wait you'll get a check in the mail with the reimbursement. Up to $200/month so it maybe worth it. Definitely more cumbersome than just having your pharmacy participating in the program, but better than nothing. Hope this helps for some

Adding to this it wouldn't be a bad a idea to check if your vaccine is still working every few years. They can check if you are still immune to Hep A/B by looking into the amount of certain antibodies flowing through your blood that the vaccine generated.

IMHO There is a benefit for the whole community when people publicize they are using PrEP. More awareness means more normalization. Then of course, everyone should be comfortable with disclosing their PrEP taking as wish. If its too much trouble for someone just don't. Most of the time, I just don't say anything.