Refusing Bareback Fuck

[BootmanLA]

On 5/29/2021 at 10:45 PM, fskn said:

Yes, people interested in HIV PrEP should see a doctor for professional advice.

In evaluating what they read online, they should be careful to distinguish empirical data (good), anecdote (suspect) and speculation (useless). Even empirical data require interpretation, which may require specialized knowledge.

For example, in a thread about PrEP side effects, a well-intentioned poster responded to an anecdotal report of a severe side effect by looking up Gilead's consumer Web site for Truvada, which says that headaches are the most common side effect. The person didn't report the percentage (quite low), and didn't realize that, in medical studies, side effects are grouped by severity. Debilitating headaches are decidedly not a common — let alone the most common — side effect of Truvada. Other posters compared PrEP and PEP (or speculated), under the incorrect assumption that HIV PEP stands for some uniform drug regimen.

As important as it is to see a medical doctor, I believe that prospective and current PrEP users should also acquaint themselves with the CDC PrEP guidelines (or local equivalent, for people outside the US).

For example, if you read the guidelines, you'll know that an at-risk gay man should receive HIV and STI testing at least every three months. I have seen examples of PrEP users — and PrEP providers — who are lax about that. The CDC guidelines follow directly from empirical data. The CDC publishes materials at all levels, from brochures to the written guidelines to the "provider supplement". If you're interested, revisions are available for review and public comment right now. They cover intermittent dosing ("2-1-1") and anticipate longer-acting injectable HIV PrEP drugs (already approved in the US as an HIV treatment option, a very exciting development!).

This is precisely why I roll my eyes at all the people giving opinions about poppers.

In the case of PrEP, PEP, and HAART, we're talking about meticulously studied, detailed analyses of drugs manufactured to fairly exacting standards which have been through clinical trial after clinical trial, and the side effects they have still vary considerably among different patients. But people on here brag or complain about particular 'brands' of poppers (as though there were even the slightest level of standardization in production, or even a hint of clinical testing) and treat their 'knowledge' as Gospel Truth Revealed From On High (no pun intended). I mean, go ahead and snort all the industrial solvents you want, it's your brain cells, but please lay off on the brand evangelization.