Anti-PrEP movement reaching new lows

[rawfuckr]

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?

[bearbandit]

As some of you know I'm a volunteer with a British HIV site. During my chatroom moderation I asked people how they felt about PrEP. Talk about a shitstorm! And most of the anger was coming from guys who weren't even conceived when I got HIV. Condoms are the only way - then how, dear boy, did you end up here?

Opposition to PrEP that I've seen in the UK has come from 20 to 30 year olds, with us longtimers welcoming it. We've lived an artificial sex life for thirty years now, originally believing it was only going to be five years or so before there were adequate treatments. I know the UK is in trouble financially, but investing in PrEP is a money saver. And all these guys snorting every white powder up their noses (to the extent you're afraid to leave the toilet cleaner in view) get all precious about putting toxic drugs into their bodies - maybe we need a snortable version of truvada...

In the case of the UK we have about 26,000 people with HIV who don't know they have it: if we can get them to test and take the pills, and the people who test neg take truvada, the whole damn war would be over... [/soapbox]

[Guest beezee]

Not sure what makes the Secret post a scare.. of course there will be many people who take PrEP and become infected - it's not 100%!

Re cost effectiveness, no one knows in the UK context if it will be. Internationally it's only cost effective when carefully limited to those at highest risk.

[seaguy]

If someone is going to be taking information of something like Secret as being truthful, especially medical information then they are an idiot. Secret is in my opinion a gossip app for teens. As with anything you're going to have your crowd that does not believe science and will continue to spout misinformation whenever they can. Look at the people who do not believe in global warming.

[fskn]

...of course there will be many people who take PrEP and become infected - it's not 100%!

Nope, there will be many people who didn't take Truvada daily, as prescribed, and who became infected. Per the iPrEx study, the protective effect is in the mid nineties when a patient is having risky sex and actually has the drug in his blood. Medicine doesn't work when you don't take it, which is where the trouble begins.

As for resistance, FDA prescribing guidelines call for quarterly HIV testing. Thus, a PrEP patient who seroconverted would be switched to an appropriate three-drug regimen within at most three months. It would be unprofessional and unethical for a doctor to renew a Truvada for PrEP prescription without making sure that the patient was still HIV-negative.

Cost effectiveness on a societal level does depend on giving the drug to patients most at risk of getting HIV. Nevertheless, drug prices vary dramatically from country to country. In the US, obviously the world's highest-price drug market, drug patents last only 20 years, which means that there will be a cheap generic version of Truvada in less than a decade.

[Guest beezee]

Again, the unproven assertion that taking it daily gives 100% protection. It would be a dream if it did, but you can't say that.

[fskn]

Again, the unproven assertion that taking it daily gives 100% protection. It would be a dream if it did, but you can't say that.

I didn't. What I said is that a proven five percent failure rate among adherents does not equal "a lot of people". Any non-adherents who blamed PrEP who indeed be spreading fear.

Incidentally, even condom use has associated failure rates -- one rate for perfect use and another for typical use.

[seaguy]

PrEP also should not be looked at as a license to be a complete total whore sleeping with anything and anyone. One must still use good judgement. If someone is a know IV drug user and you see that they have some discharge coming out of their penis don't think PrEP is going to protect you from whatever that guy might have, and then when it doesn't blame PrEP because its not an immunity shield to all STD's.

[wood]

As some of you know I'm a volunteer with a British HIV site. During my chatroom moderation I asked people how they felt about PrEP. Talk about a shitstorm! And most of the anger was coming from guys who weren't even conceived when I got HIV. Condoms are the only way - then how, dear boy, did you end up here?

Opposition to PrEP that I've seen in the UK has come from 20 to 30 year olds, with us longtimers welcoming it. We've lived an artificial sex life for thirty years now, originally believing it was only going to be five years or so before there were adequate treatments. I know the UK is in trouble financially, but investing in PrEP is a money saver. And all these guys snorting every white powder up their noses (to the extent you're afraid to leave the toilet cleaner in view) get all precious about putting toxic drugs into their bodies - maybe we need a snortable version of truvada...

In the case of the UK we have about 26,000 people with HIV who don't know they have it: if we can get them to test and take the pills, and the people who test neg take truvada, the whole damn war would be over... [/soapbox]

I'm a fairly loud and assertive person, so I haven't heard a lot of the backlash directly from people but i still think its amusing that some of the people that are most at risk are the ones against PrEP. One guy is a young Gay black male, who I fuck raw with. He was up in arms about PrEP saying people are not going to be responsible and they are going to get infected... Ummmm Hello!?!?!

[genericuser]

Everyone seems to ignore the fact that According to the FDA, “Truvada for PrEP is meant to be used as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention plan that includes the following”:

HIV risk reduction counseling

consistent and correct use of condoms

regular HIV testing (at least every three months)

screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs)

Furthermore, the FDA adds that “Truvada is not a substitute for safer sex practices.” This is because by itself Truvada is not 100% effective in preventing HIV infection.

-----------------------

PReP is NOT a license to bareback and that is a FACT.

[rawTOP]

I think the CDC and and the WHO dropped the part about condoms.

[genericuser]

I think the CDC and and the WHO dropped the part about condoms.

NO, the WHO did NOT drop the condom part.

You should really examine the facts before simply making assumptions.

[rawTOP]

NO, the WHO did NOT drop the condom part.

You should really examine the facts before simply making assumptions.

Either way - it doesn't make a difference. If a condom statement is in there it's only a gesture to the traditionalists who don't like change. TasP is becoming more and more accepted as people see it work.

[Verbal76]

It strikes me like maybe the CDC, WHO, etc. are including condoms as a cover-their-ass. It can be a tough sell to the public to endorse an expensive medicine just to allow gays to fuck without consequence. Furthermore, I"d imagine the condom part is more about the other STIs that are out there such as syphilis.

[genericuser]

Either way - it doesn't make a difference. If a condom statement is in there it's only a gesture to the traditionalists who don't like change. TasP is becoming more and more accepted as people see it work.

Keep believing that and watch HIV rates skyrocket in the next 5 years.