P.R.E.P.

[chances]

does anyone know about the effectivness of p.r.e.p., or any side effects from it, anyone here use it? I would like some information on it I you will.

[12voltyV2.0]

What is this? I have no idea what you are talking about. I am sure I am not the only one. Thanks

[pole_smoker]

Neither of us have taken it, and do not ever plan on it, as there's no need for us to since we're monogamous.

But I know people who do take it, or who have in the past and they said the side effects were not that enjoyable, plus it was expensive.

[Neonaught]

Are you talking about pre-exposure protocol for HIV?

[BiBedBud]

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (prevention), or PreP, as it's called, is nothing to take lightly.

It's usually for someone in a committed relationship with someone who is HIV+.

I don't think it's medically or ethically advisable for someone who is taking it for the purposes of 'hookup sex'.

The risks -- side effects -- of such drugs make them ill advisable for casual use.

[pole_smoker]

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (prevention), or PreP, as it's called, is nothing to take lightly.

It's usually for someone in a committed relationship with someone who is HIV+.

I don't think it's medically or ethically advisable for someone who is taking it for the purposes of 'hookup sex'.

The risks -- side effects -- of such drugs make them ill advisable for casual use.

The majority of bi and gay men who take pr-ep do it since they love to hook up...but nobody said people like this were intelligent.

Personally I think that people who take it are idiots as it has bad side effects, and these people have the mentality that eventually they're going to become HIV+ or already probably are so they might as well start taking meds.

I know lots of couples where one person is HIV+ and the other person is HIV neg and they practice safer sex, and do not take pr-ep, and the neg person is still HIV neg.

[chances]

bibedbud described it perfect

[NEPHX]

The majority of bi and gay men who take pr-ep do it since they love to hook up...but nobody said people like this were intelligent.

Personally I think that people who take it are idiots as it has bad side effects, and these people have the mentality that eventually they're going to become HIV+ or already probably are so they might as well start taking meds.

I know lots of couples where one person is HIV+ and the other person is HIV neg and they practice safer sex, and do not take pr-ep, and the neg person is still HIV neg.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Did you just choose to make this stuff up as you went along? Instead of "thinking" about what it is and what it is used for perhaps read up on the actual facts.

Your judgment of other people ("people who take it are idiots") and their sexual situation and behaviors is not answering the question and really has no useful purpose. As a community (LGBTQ and Str8) we don't need more stigmatization of people living with HIV, demonetization of PrEP, negative images that sex, same-sex or otherwise, is bad. Perhaps those that are in a monogamous relationship (or thinks he/she is) can easily make these statements of others... also consider how many HIV infections come from one's supposed monogamous partner - now and in the past... in every part of the world.

Just because someone is on PrEP does not mean they constantly "hook-up." It means they are being proactive. It could mean they have a positive partner. PrEP is just one more tool. It's not a moral issue but you certainly making it out to be one. PrEP is to help stop the spread of HIV.

Those on PrEP are not idiots for choosing PrEP. PrEP far surpasses condoms (alone) for prevention of HIV. Condom effectiveness in real world (70%) which is not even CLOSE to laboratory condom test rates (high 90s%) People on PrEP made their decision with their doctor. And, you get to make yours. Studies indicated 92-99% effectiveness rate of PrEP. A paper published in July 2014, indicated PrEP is 100 percent effective when used four or more days a week. (yes, MANY people DON'T take it as they should- won't work if you don't take it).

Your comment about the people in mix status relationships is statistically ridiculous. Besides, people that are HIV+ and on meds and remain undetectable HIV levels have almost NO chance of infecting anyone with HIV at all.

Furthermore, the protocol for those that are on PrEP generally must get retested and certified every quarter to remain on PrEP. If they show a positive HIV test, they CAN NOT stay on PrEP as it is generally Truvada and it, by itself, is never used to treat HIV alone as it is ineffective. They must immediately go on a full HIV regiment. There is also PEP if one should be exposed (postexposure prophylaxis).

The side effects or PrEP are not severe as you seem to claim. However, each person should consider their own health, situation and potential side effects. Generally, the side effects are minor. But for some people they can be more serious.
CDC FAQs: "No serious side effects were observed."

PrEP is not meant to be a ticket to have unsafe sex although there are some who would treated it that way. But those are the people that might otherwise become infected and then potentially spread HIV to others. So it's a win all the way around.

In Europe, the standard practice is that an HIV+ partner who is on HIV meds and has an HIV- partner, they don't even put the HIV- partner on PrEP and sex it is considered safe without barriers. That based on the HIV+ person remaining undetectable and on medications. You will not see the CDC say that however. But if you do have mix-status friends you might find that more common in the USA and elsewhere than anyone would ever realize Just like you might find many more "monogamously coupled" people are not monogamous at all (and many don't know it).

================================================== ================================================== ===

From www.aids.gov:

https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics...e-prophylaxis/


PrEP is not for everyone. CDC recommends PrEP be considered for people who are HIV-negative and at substantial risk for HIV infection. This includes anyone who:

• Is in an ongoing relationship with an HIV-infected partner;
• Is not in a mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who recently tested HIV-negative; and is a
  
  • gay or bisexual man who has had sex without a condom or been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection within the past six months;
  • heterosexual man or woman who does not regularly use condoms when having sex with partners known to be at risk for HIV (e.g., injecting drug users or bisexual male partners of unknown HIV status); or
  
  
• Has, within the past six months, injected illicit drugs and shared equipment or been in a treatment program for injection drug use.

The Basics:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html

[pole_smoker]

LMAO!!!!!!! I would not be surprised if you NEPHX actually are one of those idiots on Truvada/Prep, and are a truvada whore who has unprotected sex with HIV+ women and men.

The medication is not 100% effective as you claim, and the people who take it think they can take it and do it bare/raw and not get HIV or other STDs...so they're idiots.

PrEP or truvada is not going to stop the spread of HIV. It will give people who are into having unprotected anal sex with strangers who are HIV+ the idea that it's safe and they can take a pill and not practice safer sex, and a lot of people will be getting infected with HIV this way. But you have been living under a rock since the 80s and 90s if you believe that it will actually prevent HIV infection.

Then you have fools who are already HIV+ who think that they can bareback with other HIV+ people and not get a new strain of HIV/get co-infected, won't get other STDs, or infect an HIV+ person with a new strain of HIV if they're both on meds but this is incorrect but these people have a death wish as do the people who take Truvada/prep and think that it's perfectly fine to have unprotected anal sex with someone that's HIV+.

Yes there are side effects to it as there are for all HIV meds.

What about side effects?

• Lactic acidosis, which can be fatal, and severe liver problems have been reported in people takingnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). Contact your doctor immediately if you experience nausea, vomiting, or unusual or unexpected stomach discomfort; weakness and tiredness; shortness of breath; weakness in the arms and legs; yellowing of the skin or eyes; or pain in the upper stomach area.
• The Viread in Truvada may cause bone problems. In one clinical trial conducted by the manufacturer involving HIV-positive patients who were new to HIV therapy, Viread [combined withSustiva and Epivir] caused decreases in bone mineral density (osteopenia) at the hip and spine. Researchers are currently looking into the seriousness of this possible side effect. If you have a history of bone fracture or are at risk for osteopenia, your doctor may want to consider ordering bone scans on a regular basis while you are taking Truvada. While it's not clear if calcium and vitamin D supplementation can help this side effect, it might be beneficial if you are taking Viread.
• Some patients treated with Viread have had kidney problems. The Viread in Truvada can be problematic for HIV-positive people who have a history of kidney problems (renal impairment). If you have a history of kidney problems, including kidney problems after using the hepatitis drug Hepsera (adefovir), your doctor will need to order a simple laboratory test to calculate your "creatinine clearance," which is a measure of your kidney function. Depending on the results of this test, you may not be able to take Truvada. It is always important to be careful if using Truvada in combination with drugs that cause kidney problems or other drugs that are removed from the body by the kidneys.
• HIV drug regimens containing nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), including Truvada, can cause increased fat levels (cholesterol and triglycerides) in the blood, and abnormal body-shape changes (lipodystrophy; including increased fat around the abdomen, breasts, and back of the neck, as well as decreased fat in the face, arms, and legs). These side effects of HIV drug therapy are reviewed in our lessons on Lipodystrophy, Facial Lipoatrophy, and Risks To Your Heart (Hyperlipidemia).
• If you have hepatitis B and HIV and plan to stop taking Truvada, you need close medical follow-up and for several months your doctor might want to frequently check your liver enzymes after stopping treatment. This is because the Viread and Emtriva in Truvada are also active against the hepatitis B virus (HBV). If Truvada is stopped abruptly, it can cause liver disease to "flare" and damage the liver.
• The most common side effects of Truvada are diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, headache, dizziness, depression, insomnia, abnormal dreams and rash.

Call your doctor at once if you have any of these other serious side effects:

• rapid heart rate, increased sweating, tremors, sleep problems (insomnia), feeling anxious or irritable;
• severe diarrhea, unexplained weight loss, menstrual changes, impotence, loss of interest in sex;
• swelling in your neck or throat (enlarged thyroid), feeling short of breath;
• weakness or prickly feeling in your fingers or toes, joint pain;
• problems with balance or eye movement, trouble speaking or swallowing;
• severe lower back pain, loss of bladder or bowel control;
• signs of new infection such as fever, chills, skin lesions, or cough with yellow or green mucus; or
• signs of liver damage - nausea, upper stomach pain, itching, loss of appetite, dark urine, clay-colored stools, jaundice (yellowing of the skin or eyes).

Less serious side effects may include:

• mild diarrhea. mild nausea or stomach pain;
• headache, dizziness, depressed mood;
• strange dreams;
• mild itching or skin rash; or
• changes in the shape or location of body fat (especially in your arms, legs, face, neck, breasts, and waist).

This is not a complete list of side effects and others may occur.


TRUVADA can cause serious side effects:

• Too much lactic acid in your blood (lactic acidosis), which is a serious medical emergency. Symptoms of lactic acidosis include weakness or being more tired than usual, unusual muscle pain, being short of breath or fast breathing, nausea, vomiting, stomach-area pain, cold or blue hands and feet, feeling dizzy or lightheaded, and/or fast or abnormal heartbeats.
• Serious liver problems. Your liver may become large and tender, and you may develop fat in your liver. Symptoms of liver problems include your skin or the white part of your eyes turns yellow, dark “tea-colored” urine, light-colored stools, loss of appetite for several days or longer, nausea, and/or stomach-area pain.
• You may be more likely to get lactic acidosis or serious liver problems if you are female, very overweight (obese), or have been taking TRUVADA for a long time. In some cases, these serious conditions have led to death. Call your healthcare provider right away if you have any symptoms of these conditions.

[pole_smoker]

The constant proselytizing about it in gay/bisexual media and on hook up apps and websites. It’s gone far beyond merely providing the population with information into rabid evangelism.

Yes, a risk of contracting almost any STI with any type of protection one uses exists, yet pretending that condoms have suddenly become obsolete or ineffective because of the creation of this pill — which clearly doesn’t shield against diseases other that HIV/AIDS — is silly.

Wtf is wrong with these idiots? They’re really entrusting their lives, and health to an unproven drug with horrible side effects?

[livstud2001]

NEPHX conveniently quotes the 'failure rate' of condoms in the study as 70% but ignores the paragraph below where the study talks about 'consistent' condom use. On the receiving side, it is 1 in 667 hiv exposures of receptive sex and one in 1429 exposures. I'll just leave this here:

Consistent condom use and HIV infections

The main comparison made by the researchers is between study participants who reported ‘never’ using condoms during discrete six-month periods of follow-up, and ones who reported ‘always’ using them during those periods. The researchers also determined how many study participants had partners in each six-month period that they knew to be HIV positive and looked specifically at condom usage rates with these partners.
Clearly the known HIV-positive partners would not be all the partners with HIV that study participants had contact with. However there is no way of knowing how many of their other partners whose HIV status was unknown or assumed to be negative in fact had HIV. Estimating this would not add clarity because it cannot take account of differences in individual participant behaviour.
Combining figures from both trials, and excluding some participants such as those reporting sex with women or injecting drug use, the researchers included 7725 men, of whom 3490 (45%) reported sex with a known HIV-positive partner at any time during the studies. In total there were 42451 six-monthly appointments attended, and sex with a known HIV-positive partner was reported by participants at 22% of those visits. Among those men 225 (6.4%) acquired HIV infection, with no significant difference between VAX004 (7%) and EXPLORE (6%), and 2.5% of men per six-monthly visit turned out to have acquired HIV since their last visit.
In seroconverters, 14% in EXPLORE (19% in receptive sex) and 29% in VAX004 (38% in receptive sex) maintained they had always used condoms with HIV-positive partners in the six-month period during which they acquired HIV; 42% and 30% respectively said they never had; and 46% and 33% respectively said they sometimes had. This of course says nothing about condom usage in the previous six months with partners assumed to be negative or of unknown status.
In terms of the absolute likelihood of catching HIV, the researchers calculated that the 100% consistent use of a condom transformed the per-act likelihood of HIV infection in EXPLORE from one infection in 286 sex acts in men who never used condoms to one in 1429 in men who always did, and in VAX004 from one in 556 acts to one in 1000 acts. When only sex as the receptive partner was considered, the observed per-act transmission risk in EXPLORE was one in 90 acts without any condom use and one in 667 acts with 100% use, and in VAX004 one per 244 and one per 454 acts respectively.

http://www.aidsmap.com/CDC-researche.../page/2930716/

[pole_smoker]

NEPHX conveniently quotes the 'failure rate' of condoms in the study as 70% but ignores the paragraph below where the study talks about 'consistent' condom use. On the receiving side, it is 1 in 667 hiv exposures of receptive sex and one in 1429 exposures. I'll just leave this here:

Consistent condom use and HIV infections

The main comparison made by the researchers is between study participants who reported ‘never’ using condoms during discrete six-month periods of follow-up, and ones who reported ‘always’ using them during those periods. The researchers also determined how many study participants had partners in each six-month period that they knew to be HIV positive and looked specifically at condom usage rates with these partners.
Clearly the known HIV-positive partners would not be all the partners with HIV that study participants had contact with. However there is no way of knowing how many of their other partners whose HIV status was unknown or assumed to be negative in fact had HIV. Estimating this would not add clarity because it cannot take account of differences in individual participant behaviour.
Combining figures from both trials, and excluding some participants such as those reporting sex with women or injecting drug use, the researchers included 7725 men, of whom 3490 (45%) reported sex with a known HIV-positive partner at any time during the studies. In total there were 42451 six-monthly appointments attended, and sex with a known HIV-positive partner was reported by participants at 22% of those visits. Among those men 225 (6.4%) acquired HIV infection, with no significant difference between VAX004 (7%) and EXPLORE (6%), and 2.5% of men per six-monthly visit turned out to have acquired HIV since their last visit.
In seroconverters, 14% in EXPLORE (19% in receptive sex) and 29% in VAX004 (38% in receptive sex) maintained they had always used condoms with HIV-positive partners in the six-month period during which they acquired HIV; 42% and 30% respectively said they never had; and 46% and 33% respectively said they sometimes had. This of course says nothing about condom usage in the previous six months with partners assumed to be negative or of unknown status.
In terms of the absolute likelihood of catching HIV, the researchers calculated that the 100% consistent use of a condom transformed the per-act likelihood of HIV infection in EXPLORE from one infection in 286 sex acts in men who never used condoms to one in 1429 in men who always did, and in VAX004 from one in 556 acts to one in 1000 acts. When only sex as the receptive partner was considered, the observed per-act transmission risk in EXPLORE was one in 90 acts without any condom use and one in 667 acts with 100% use, and in VAX004 one per 244 and one per 454 acts respectively.

http://www.aidsmap.com/CDC-researche.../page/2930716/

Well said. NEPHX is a troll.

Plus Truvada/prep is supposed to be used along with a condom but the majority of people who take it fail to do this; but they're idiots with a death wish.

[NEPHX]

Well said. NEPHX is a troll.

Plus Truvada/prep is supposed to be used along with a condom but the majority of people who take it fail to do this; but they're idiots with a death wish.

No NEPHX is not a troll...

Yes, PrEP is supposed to be used with condoms. I don't see anywhere saying otherwise. Why are you dissing PrEP and calling people idiots that use PrEP? Why do you assume everyone using PrEP is a slut? How the heck do you come to the conclusion that those on PrEP fail to use condoms? And you now add that they have a death wish.

So, everyone is an Idiot in your book PS?

[livstud2001]

No NEPHX is not a troll...

Yes, PrEP is supposed to be used with condoms.

I like this statement-I can certainly support someone who uses both PREP *and* condoms...kind of a 'double whammy' of safety.

[pole_smoker]

No NEPHX is not a troll...

Yes, PrEP is supposed to be used with condoms. I don't see anywhere saying otherwise. Why are you dissing PrEP and calling people idiots that use PrEP? Why do you assume everyone using PrEP is a slut? How the heck do you come to the conclusion that those on PrEP fail to use condoms? And you now add that they have a death wish.

So, everyone is an Idiot in your book PS?

Yes you are a troll.

You yourself posted how idiots on Truvada/prep are fine with not using the condoms when having sex with people who are HIV-Positive.

No, not everyone is an idiot. But you are a bug chaser who is a complete fool if you use prep/Truvada and have unprotected sex the way most people who take the medication do.

I would not be surprised if the troll NEPHX is HIV-POSITIVE, or is a prep/Truvada bug chasing idiot with a death wish.

[pole_smoker]

I like this statement-I can certainly support someone who uses both PREP *and* condoms...kind of a 'double whammy' of safety.

If someone uses condoms correctly, and has safer sex consistently there is no need to use prep/truvada.

Does anyone here besides me, actually know anyone who is HIV-POSITIVE? If you do then you would know that truvada/prep is not something a healthy and sane person who wants to stay HIV negative should be taking, and that if you have unprotected sex even if you do take prep/Truvada eventually you will become HIV-Positive and get other STDs ...but then you have bug chaser idiot trolls like NEPHX that are not medical professionals, who have death wishes telling people to pop truvada like candy, and not use condoms. It's 2015. You should know by now how to have safer sex, without taking prep/Truvada, and not become HIV-POSITIVE, as safer sex and how HIV infection happens have been known about for over 32 years.

[12voltyV2.0]

Thanks for the info on this. I had not heard of this before. It does sound that this is only something that you would be doing if you knew you had a partner who was HIV/AIDS poz.

Once again--just like with most medical issues, there are always potential negative side effects from nearly every sort of medical treatment or such and you do need to be informed and make your own "cost/risk benefits assessment" before undertaking such a course of action.

[NEPHX]

Please stop your immature behavior and your personal attacks on people, name calling, etc.

"Posting Rules:
Every great community has rules. Here are ours
2 - Be polite. Flame the idea if you feel you must, but not the person."

See if you can handle #2

Yes you are a troll.

You yourself posted how idiots on Truvada/prep are fine with not using the condoms when having sex with people who are HIV-Positive.

** No, I quoted studies showing the effectiveness. I am not advocating its use outside of the CDC Clinic Practice Guidelines. You can clearly see that in each of my posts. **

No, not everyone is an idiot. But you are a bug chaser who is a complete fool if you use prep/Truvada and have unprotected sex the way most people who take the medication do.


I would not be surprised if the troll NEPHX is HIV-POSITIVE, or is a prep/Truvada bug chasing idiot with a death wish.

** You don't know me so please keep your opinions of me to yourself. The topic of this discussion is PrEP not who you think might be HIV+, on PrEP or their intelligence level due to using a modern day prevention tool. But, since you mentioned it, wonderful job at insulting and alienating all those that read this, and your other derogatory posts that perhaps happen to be HIV+. Very smooth. **

[NEPHX]

NEPHX conveniently quotes the 'failure rate' of condoms in the study as 70% but ignores the paragraph below where the study talks about 'consistent' condom use. On the receiving side, it is 1 in 667 hiv exposures of receptive sex and one in 1429 exposures. I'll just leave this here:

Actually I quoted the stated effectiveness rate of condoms (success) from the article about the study - not the failure rate, my exact words:
Condom effectiveness in real world (70%)

Comparatively: ".... estimated, in a paper published in July 2014, that PrEP is 100 percent effective when used four or more days a week."

To me its very surprising even shocking because that number 70 % is:

"... actual real-world effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV among MSM who use them consistently and correctly...."

So, more tools than just the condom alone are certainly a good direction.

One can only review the results of these studies and not try to pull numbers out of one part or another.. if the study is considered to be reputable and accepted/proven to be using valid techniques, data, models, etc. and are statistically accurate.

The article on the study: http://www.aidsmap.com/CDC-researche.../page/2930716/ or http://www.poz.com/articles/condom_P...01_26766.shtml
February 4, 2015

How Well Do Condoms and PrEP Prevent HIV Among Gay and Bi Men?

by Benjamin Ryan

Quotes from the article and the researchers:

"CDC researchers have estimated how well condoms and PrEP, used independently or in combination, prevent HIV among gay and bisexual men. How much faith can individuals place in these figures?"

At the 2013 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Dawn K. Smith, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, presented results of research she and CDC colleagues conducted about the effectiveness of condoms among MSM. (“Effectiveness” is synonymous with condoms’ success rate, or how well they reduce HIV risk.) Those MSM who always use condoms, she reported, have a 70 percent lower risk of HIV than those who always bareback.

To condom devotees, this figure may seem alarmingly low, even farfetched. If nothing else, 70 percent is quite a drop in effectiveness when compared with studies showing that latex is a nearly impermeable barrier to HIV, and that condoms’ HIV protection rate is in the high 90 percent range—in an ideal laboratory setting, that is. Real-life safer sex is considerably more complex.

So how solid is “70 percent”?

Smith says she is “very confident” about the 70 percent figure, saying it is “the best estimate we have” of the actual real-world effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV among MSM who use them consistently and correctly.


A 2012 follow-up study to iPrEx took the results of tests of drug blood levels that estimated actual, rather than self-reported, adherence to Truvada, and used a mathematical model called a regression analysis to come up with the 99 percent effectiveness estimate.

[pole_smoker]

I am not insulting anyone that happens to be HIV-POSITIVE.

I am however writing counter arguments to your trolling, and nonsense since you are talking out of your ass, and have the mentality of an idiot bug chaser, and you lie and distort studies and leave out information that does not suit your own agenda that it's fine to take prep/truvada and have unprotected sex, when anyone with a brain knows this is not a good thing to do. :smiles15

However if you are one of those people that is HIV-POSITIVE and thinks that this means you do not need to have safer sex then you are an idiot, wit a deat wish. Even my friends who happen to be HIV-POSITIVE agree with this, and I showed some of them this thread. They say that people like the troll NEPHX who think that it's fine to take truvada/prep and have unprotected sex are moronic bug chasers who have a death wish who either are HIV+ already or they're well on their way to becoming HIV+ since they think they can take prep/truvada, have unprotected sex, and magically stay HIV neg when it does not work this way. You were called out by myself and other people about doing this, and writing lies that condoms are not effective and that people should pop prep like candy and nor use condoms.

Prep/truvada preventing HIV infection? If anything it will increase HIV infection since the majority of fools who take it think that a medication that is toxic and full of nasty side effects will magically always protect them against HIV and they can have all the unprotected sex with whoever they want. But nobody ever said prep/truvada proponents are actually intelligent, or really know just how to have safer sex and protect themselves and all the unfortunate people who they have unprotected sex with from HIV, and other STDs.

You must be living under a rock, in a deeply locked closet, or dark troll cave to actually foolishly believe that most people who take prep/truvada follow CDC guidelines or what their doctor tells them and use condoms while taking it, and that the majority of people who are on this medication are simply HIV neg people who are in a completely monogamous relationship with someone that's HIV+ and that everyone on it uses condoms and has safer sex.

[chances]

trouble these days volty is people don't tell the truth, so you don't know who or what to believe