rawfuckr

Yeah, listen to bearbandit. There is really not much scientific evidence about what to do to stop PrEP other than the 30 day PEP-like course. Better to be safe than sorry.

The case for that is the same on being done in the USA. If the gay men end seroconverting, we all agree that the healthcare plans will have to pay for their life-long treatment, so avoiding infections could be cost effective after all. It really comes down to the efficacy of PrEP not proven to be close to perfect if one adheres daily and then of course how much you can get the population at risk to get the pill, which is a real challenge. Does anyone have any idea when Truvada could go generic in Europe? In the USA I've heard sometime in 2017

Well, it really seems it's all about 'buildup' in your system of Tenofovir. It takes 7 days to get to levels that afford protection so missing a dose, and let alone taking at a different time shouldn't really matter much. Still curious to see what the results of iPergay will be in France (just pop a pill before sex and 2 a couple of days later) but I'm wondering if that study is ever going to be finished. They are a placebo controlled study and the ethical implications of putting someone in placebo at this point are questionable. Also, the study is being done in France and to produce statistically significant results they are going to have to recruit zillions of people. They just announced they are having problems with recruiting and we are now looking at results in 2016.

Bear with me here as I'm posting this minutes after hitting the wires but I've been waiting for the results of iPrEX OLE for a couple of years. Reading the press release here http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/268053491.html but seems pretty fantastic on a first read. In particular: "No study participant who took PrEP 4 or more times per week became HIV-infected" Which I guess it means than daily dosing has to be very very prottective. iPrEX OLE recruited 1600 folks and they were followed over a year and half. PrEP starting to look really good?

I pay $5/month for it with my Obamacare plan with Kaiser. I bothered one month to get the $5 back from Gilead, which I did. Too much of a hassle with Kaiser though.

Just don't mention condoms, most guys will not use them 90% of the time whatever their original stance is. If you talk about playing raw they'll think you are 'dirty' and have and STD and require condoms. Actually I've found that saying that 'I only play safe' is a good strategy for condomless fucking. They just think you are a safe fuck because your previous request for safer sex.

There was this thing coming out today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-staley/antiprep-scare-tactics_b_5591961.html Someone went on Secret (for those not familiar with it, sort of a social network where you can post stuff without people knowing who you are) and claimed that even when he had been taking PrEP religiously he was just now testing positive with a Truvada resistant strain. I was done well enough to raise doubts in people about PrEP efficacy, and I'm sure that was the original intent of the poster. Assuming his story is false, and there are some pointers that indicates it is, why are people so fixated with bringing PrEP down?

I see a lot of folks reading the Truvada label and start screaming of the horrible things that are spelled out there, so I'm sure that puts a lot of people off. We just need a lot more push in the community to reach out and inform people about it, let them know side effects are rare, and if they are there are manageable. It will take time but it's happening already.

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.