The LGBT Community

Moderators: biscuits, Spartan

 

Postby Benny » Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:05 pm

Now I'm 100% sure that Hillary Clinton or whatever she's called works for the company that sells Truvada.
User avatar
Benny
Legend
 
Posts: 22651
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009
Location: .eu

Postby RayRay » Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:31 pm

KokoCollino wrote:I came in here to say how much it frustrates me that the gay community is so much about sex and gay clichés.

Didn't know it's what you guys are currently talking about.

It's hard to find somebody looking for a true lifelong, kind of traditional relationship.
They are out there. Most of the guys I know have long relationships, including myself.
Maybe they're not on dating apps, but you'll find them in real life.
User avatar
RayRay
Legend
 
Posts: 12523
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011
Location: Netherlands

Postby clh_hilary » Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:35 pm

Benny wrote:Now I'm 100% sure that Hillary Clinton or whatever she's called works for the company that sells Truvada.
Oh, but not birth control pills? Antibiotics and antivirals for cold? Traditional Chinese medicine? Herbs? Panadol? Vitamin C? Vaccines? Wi-Fi? GM food?

I have no problem with people having any of these, and I have no stake in PrEP. I don't make more money at all if anyone uses it.

Why wouldn't you just admit you were wrong about its long-term effects, and that indeed you're being logically quite consistent warning about the side effects of PrEP whilst having no issue whatsoever with swallowing a panadol without thinking about its potential side effects?
WhatTheHell wrote:Voice of the truth here!! :(
User avatar
clh_hilary
Superstar
 
Posts: 5021
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009
Location: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Postby RayRay » Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:40 pm

^ No medicine/drug is only "good" for you. That's why they have to be prescribed.
User avatar
RayRay
Legend
 
Posts: 12523
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011
Location: Netherlands

Postby Benny » Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:55 pm

clh_hilary wrote:Why wouldn't you just admit you were wrong about its long-term effects, and that indeed you're being logically quite consistent warning about the side effects of PrEP whilst having no issue whatsoever with swallowing a panadol without thinking about its potential side effects?
You still didn't answer my question if you're a doctor or pharmacist. It seems not?

I've never seen anyone argue the way you do. There's no logic at all. So you are comparing taking PrEP to taking vitamin C or herbs????? And how can you compare taking PrEP to taking paracetamol?
If you have a headache, and it doesn't go away, then you have to take a tablet against it (except if you are sadomasochistic). So you have to take a painkiller like paracetamol, ibuprofen etc.. You have no other choice. Unfortunately there are no condoms for headaches. It's completely different.
User avatar
Benny
Legend
 
Posts: 22651
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009
Location: .eu

Postby clh_hilary » Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:21 pm

RayRay wrote:^ No medicine/drug is only "good" for you. That's why they have to be prescribed.
Not all medications are prescripted drugs. But if they are approved by the government, they are supposed to be good enough.

But yes, the fact that all medication, even Vitamin C pills have a long list of potential side effects was precisely my point. Sure, consider the potential side effects, but let's not act like PrEP having them is anything special.

And what I was saying about prescriptions was that PrEP is a prescripted drug not in every country, and where it is, it's only because it's customary for antibiotics and antivirals to be one, as misusing them could lead to drug resistance (in PrEP's case, taking them while being HIV positive).
WhatTheHell wrote:Voice of the truth here!! :(
User avatar
clh_hilary
Superstar
 
Posts: 5021
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009
Location: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Postby Mainshow » Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:29 pm

Yesterday, the first Pride took place in East Poland. 1,500 people marched for diversity, equality and love in the city of Lublin!
Sadly, 250 counterprotestors appeared and some of them were throwing rocks and hurt police officers. - The rest of the march stayed peaceful!

It is a huge deal because Poland is one of the few countries left in Central Europe where gay people aren't treated with dignity or equally and the mayor of the city of Lublin wanted to ban the parade at first because of "security reasons". I am glad he went the other direction!

Go, Poland! So proud of you <3 There's still so much to do but I am happy it didn't become "too violent" and that more people in favor of this march came together! That's quite a big deal in Poland atm!

Here's some frightening and saddening footage of the "protestors", though :(

User avatar
Mainshow
Legend
 
Posts: 15296
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012
Location: Germany

Postby clh_hilary » Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:37 pm

Benny wrote:You still didn't answer my question if you're a doctor or pharmacist. It seems not?
There's no reason for me to address every single word, just as you haven't, seemingly whenever you cannot think of any rebuttals.

No, I'm not a doctor or a pharmacist. But anyone can read the published research and get themselves informed, not to mention most doctors and pharmacists in the world have never even heard of PrEP. There's a reason why specialists and academics exist.

Benny wrote:I've never seen anyone argue the way you do.
By tearing apart every single argument and claim you have? Well, it's good that you finally face some actual challenges.

Benny wrote:There's no logic at all. So you are comparing taking PrEP to taking vitamin C or herbs????? And how can you compare taking PrEP to taking paracetamol?
The point there is that even taking vitamin C or herb teas have side effects. You're presenting as if this is a PrEP-specific situation, and I'm pointing out the fact that it isn't. With anything, you have to consider whether you personally experience those side effects, then if you do, whether you think the benefits outweigh the side effects. For example, some may not like the side effect of feeling sleepy that some feel when having PrEP or taking cold medicine, but perhaps they deem it better than the alternative of possibly acquiring HIV or feeling the symptoms of their illness. The point was not that PrEP is the same as vitamin C, but that all medication have potential side effects. Perhaps if you have understood the point, or chosen not to misrepresent it, you could've found the perfect logic in it.

And for the record, there are herbs - and yes, some within traditional Chinese medicine, as well as Peruvian indigenous medication - that could, and have literally, killed people, despite their being in use of thousands of years. So I guess in a way, yes, PrEP is different, since 0 people have died.

Benny wrote:If you have a headache, and it doesn't go away, then you have to take a tablet against it (except if you are sadomasochistic). So you have to take a painkiller like paracetamol, ibuprofen etc.. You have no other choice. Unfortunately there are no condoms for headaches. It's completely different.
It does go away in most situations, unless it's a symptom of something bigger, such as cancer. The "condom" for headaches would be time, water, and rest. Why'd you think so many find homoeopathy to be effective?

But see how you have avoided literally everything else because you cannot think of anything at all to say in order to defend your own very obviously incorrect views?

If we have to compare only the most similar situations, there's the birth control pill. Once again, do you have the same confusion over why people use birth control pills? After all, they use it instead of condoms, and the pills only protect them against one very specific thing, while having a long list of documented side effects, and are more expensive. And don't forget Hep A and Hep B and HPV vaccines, all are to protect against diseases that are transmitted sexually, and could all have been mostly avoided by the use of a condom.
WhatTheHell wrote:Voice of the truth here!! :(
User avatar
clh_hilary
Superstar
 
Posts: 5021
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009
Location: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Postby Benny » Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:46 pm

clh_hilary wrote:No, I'm not a doctor or a pharmacist. But anyone can read the published research and get themselves informed, not to mention most doctors and pharmacists in the world have never even heard of PrEP. There's a reason why specialists and academics exist.
So doctors and pharmacists, the people who know most about medication, are not as qualified to talk about PrEP as you, somebody who is neither of those but a 'specialist' and 'academic' ??? How interesting!

I could reply to every point you raised but that would be a waste of time. The discussion would go on forever.
User avatar
Benny
Legend
 
Posts: 22651
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009
Location: .eu

Postby clh_hilary » Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:05 pm

Benny wrote:So doctors and pharmacists, the people who know most about medication, are not as qualified to talk about PrEP as you, somebody who is neither of those but a 'specialist' and 'academic' ??? How interesting!

I could reply to every point you raised but that would be a waste of time. The discussion would go on forever.
I didn't say that. I said it's a moot point because you are not a doctor or a pharmacist, and you do not have any evidence from them saying PrEP would have long-term effects on the kidneys, or that most people would experience it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25531343.
In this large randomized, placebo-controlled trial among heterosexual persons, with median follow-up of 18 months and maximum follow-up of 36 months, daily oral TDF-based PrEP resulted in a small but nonprogressive decline in eGFR that was not accompanied by a substantial increase in the risk of clinically relevant (≥25%) eGFR decline.

1.3% and 1.8% experienced a decline in kidney function, but those were not statistically significant compared to the placebo group. None experienced issues significant enough to require medical attention.

https://www.projectinform.org/news/croi ... adherence/
Less than 2.4% had a decline in a test of kidney function (eGFR) of 10% or more, and drops reversed on cessation of PrEP
...even when tests indicate a problem, the actual harms might be less than suggested by the tests

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html
PrEP can cause side effects like nausea in some people, but these generally subside over time. No serious side effects have been observed, and these side effects aren’t life threatening.

---

Oh, and you don't accept that idea that when it comes to specialist medication, specialists are the ones who we should consult, instead of general practitioners? Talk about logic, indeed. Just like you wouldn't hire a mathematics professor to teach you history, ever if that professor has a Nobel Prize, you wouldn't go for an orthopaedic surgeon to treat depression, right?

You are so fixated on never to acknowledge the obvious fact that you are wrong, you are giving up on common sense. Once again, not that your point is relevant to begin with, since you are not a doctor or a pharmacist, and you have had produced no evidence from doctors or pharmacists that say PrEP has long-term effects on the kidney or that most people experience any effect.

---

Oh you wouldn't address every point?

Fine, but remember what you have been doing.

I skipped over some less important lines from your responses, and somehow it was a problem.

You said vitamin C isn't comparable (and you have also failed to respond to my clarification), yet you declined to comment on the use of birth control pill - a pill, exactly like PrEP, protects one against a specific thing that could have been resulted from sex; a pill, exactly like PrEP, has established side effects but no life-threatening ones; a pill, exactly like PrEP, substitutes what condoms can do, and is more expensive than buying a condom; a pill, exactly like PrEP, that can be taken either regularly, or on-demand prior to having sex. Oh but somehow that isn't worth responding to.

It's not a waste of time because the discussion could go on longer because of the sea of evidence I can present to you; it's a waste of time because you clearly aren't interested in facts, but are interested in not admiting that you're wrong, for whatever reason. It is a waste of time talking to you because it is now clear that the only thing you are going to is misrepresent or misinterpret what you read - whether it's my words, or words from medical professionals. Do know that there's a moral responsibility for anyone to challenge these falsehoods, since we're talking about a potentially life-saving medication. Hence, I don't see challenging you a waste of time, because this is not about convincing you of the truth, but to allow others to see your misrepresentations challenged.
WhatTheHell wrote:Voice of the truth here!! :(
User avatar
clh_hilary
Superstar
 
Posts: 5021
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009
Location: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Postby SummerPeur » Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:32 pm

Very well explained.
SummerPeur wrote:Time stops for the Kween everytime WBT is performed.
Goldmoney wrote:So does her microphone
User avatar
SummerPeur
Kylie Overseer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby RayRay » Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:13 pm



Best coming out song ever.
User avatar
RayRay
Legend
 
Posts: 12523
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011
Location: Netherlands

Postby Serby » Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:16 pm

Diana Ross was what I was listening just before I came out to my parents.
be kind to every kind
User avatar
Serby
Dr. Serby
 
Posts: 36928
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011
Location: Halliwell Manor

Postby jio » Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:54 pm

Oh this Prep discussion got heated up... I will participate in a second...
User avatar
jio
Legend
 
Posts: 13601
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009

Postby jio » Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:14 pm

clh_hilary wrote:
jio wrote:I find the idea that someone would take a medicine all his life only so he/she doesn't use condom somehow disturbing. I wonder if they know what the long-term effects on the liver are.
That's just false representation of what actually happens. Not only is the idea actually being voluntarily taking one from time to time as opposed to invlountarily taking the medication for the rest of one's life, there's no need to take PrEP "all his life" in the first place. The "on-demand" method proven to be safe means you would only be taking it as often as you have sex, and ever if you don't go for that, you can always stop when you're experiencing a dry spell, or you are confident on your partner's sexual activities.
Well... actually the differentiation you make between voluntary and involuntary is besides the point. When you participate in a certain lifestyle there are certain things that you do just because everybody else is doing. Of course there are people who don't follow such trends. But I was talking about the generation "prep" that means the gays that happily take a med that they believe will protect them from HIV in addition too or (more often) in the place of an actual condom. Prep is now part of gay culture. I know that "on prep" is an attribute used in dating sites along with top/btm/fat/short/I don't know what. That alone creates the impression to younger minds that it's OK to use a medicine to fit in. And yes it might be a voluntary decision but you are subject in involuntary and undeclared medical advertisement long before you make your voluntary decision. And that's just plain wrong. All the other things you say as often as/with partner/bla bla are also besides the point since we are talking by definition about people having an active sex life. You can be gay and practice abstinence too yes but we are not talking about those.

clh_hilary wrote:
jio wrote:Also the scientific view on this is that it will mathematically lead to an increase of all other STDs hence more medicine for the subject to take more gains for big pharma hooray (condoms are cheap)
This is so wrong.

How much do medications for other STDs cost? How much does HIV medication cost? How many pills must an HIV patient take? How many pills/injections must an other STD patient have? Are you seriously suggesting that selling a few more shots of antibiotics to treat gonorrhoea would make more money than a lifetime of HIV medication?

What's next? The big pharmas have suppressed the cure for cancer and HIV cuz of money? Maybe HIV doesn't actually exist, and the big pharma only invented it to make money? At least with in conspiracy theories, the companies would make more money than in yours...

Also, what has happened is that people with STD(s) are going to be detected much earlier, thus stopping the transmission from going on indefinitely. Condoms aren't effective against most other types of STD, unless, at the very least, you use a condom even for oral sex. If condoms actually work in real-life, we would've seen the HIV slump PrEP has brought us for those STDs (as well as HIV itself) ages ago.
Actually this whole part of your post is completely wrong. There HAS been an increase in all other STDs in western Europe and the United States/Canada (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stds-on-th ... rd-levels/ (and I don't wanna hear anyone judging the source. I don't care about the article I am just giving data) the last few years and that's mainly because of people no longer using condoms as much because they are not that afraid of the big std. The problem is that with more virus going around it is far more possible for more strong and potentially resistant strains of such viruses and bacteria to appear. That already seems to be happening with gonorrhea for example. Also the part of my post about big pharma money is valid. Condoms provide no business for big pharma. Truvada/prep/pep/antiretrovirals/antibiotics/whatever= big business.

clh_hilary wrote:
Benny wrote:Regarding PrEP, the long-term effects are unknown, so as RayRay said, I would only take it if there's no other possibility.
Considering the fact that HIV medication has been around for decades. Yes, we know what the long-term effects are, and there's no long-term effects found on the kidney. Short-term effects aren't even observed in most users.

This is just like the people saying we don't know how safe microwaves are.
The kidney part is totally wrong as another user pointed out. Moreover HIV medication has been around for 3 decades. That is not the current medication however. Truvada for example has been used for HIV treatment for less than 20 years now. The drugs used initially for HIV are not as widely used today. There are antibiotics currently getting new contraindications that have been out way longer than 30 (nevermind 20) years. Also in 3 decades there is simply not enough people getting an HIV infection in the 90s and getting really old on continuous antiretroviral use to have a big enough sample to be sure of potential long term side effects. That makes the claim that HIV-positive people on antiretroviral have almost the same life expectancy and quality of life with HIV-negative people a lie. We simply do not know. That said I do support antiretroviral use for HIV-positive people. It's a life-saver and also a preventive measure in spreading the disease. I do not support the use of preventive meds on healthy people when there is a much safer alternative.
User avatar
jio
Legend
 
Posts: 13601
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009

Postby jio » Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:49 pm

clh_hilary wrote:
Benny wrote:So doctors and pharmacists, the people who know most about medication, are not as qualified to talk about PrEP as you, somebody who is neither of those but a 'specialist' and 'academic' ??? How interesting!

I could reply to every point you raised but that would be a waste of time. The discussion would go on forever.
I didn't say that. I said it's a moot point because you are not a doctor or a pharmacist, and you do not have any evidence from them saying PrEP would have long-term effects on the kidneys, or that most people would experience it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25531343.
In this large randomized, placebo-controlled trial among heterosexual persons, with median follow-up of 18 months and maximum follow-up of 36 months, daily oral TDF-based PrEP resulted in a small but nonprogressive decline in eGFR that was not accompanied by a substantial increase in the risk of clinically relevant (≥25%) eGFR decline.

1.3% and 1.8% experienced a decline in kidney function, but those were not statistically significant compared to the placebo group. None experienced issues significant enough to require medical attention.

https://www.projectinform.org/news/croi ... adherence/
Less than 2.4% had a decline in a test of kidney function (eGFR) of 10% or more, and drops reversed on cessation of PrEP
...even when tests indicate a problem, the actual harms might be less than suggested by the tests

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html
PrEP can cause side effects like nausea in some people, but these generally subside over time. No serious side effects have been observed, and these side effects aren’t life threatening.

---

Oh, and you don't accept that idea that when it comes to specialist medication, specialists are the ones who we should consult, instead of general practitioners? Talk about logic, indeed. Just like you wouldn't hire a mathematics professor to teach you history, ever if that professor has a Nobel Prize, you wouldn't go for an orthopaedic surgeon to treat depression, right?

You are so fixated on never to acknowledge the obvious fact that you are wrong, you are giving up on common sense. Once again, not that your point is relevant to begin with, since you are not a doctor or a pharmacist, and you have had produced no evidence from doctors or pharmacists that say PrEP has long-term effects on the kidney or that most people experience any effect.

---

Oh you wouldn't address every point?

Fine, but remember what you have been doing.

I skipped over some less important lines from your responses, and somehow it was a problem.

You said vitamin C isn't comparable (and you have also failed to respond to my clarification), yet you declined to comment on the use of birth control pill - a pill, exactly like PrEP, protects one against a specific thing that could have been resulted from sex; a pill, exactly like PrEP, has established side effects but no life-threatening ones; a pill, exactly like PrEP, substitutes what condoms can do, and is more expensive than buying a condom; a pill, exactly like PrEP, that can be taken either regularly, or on-demand prior to having sex. Oh but somehow that isn't worth responding to.

It's not a waste of time because the discussion could go on longer because of the sea of evidence I can present to you; it's a waste of time because you clearly aren't interested in facts, but are interested in not admiting that you're wrong, for whatever reason. It is a waste of time talking to you because it is now clear that the only thing you are going to is misrepresent or misinterpret what you read - whether it's my words, or words from medical professionals. Do know that there's a moral responsibility for anyone to challenge these falsehoods, since we're talking about a potentially life-saving medication. Hence, I don't see challenging you a waste of time, because this is not about convincing you of the truth, but to allow others to see your misrepresentations challenged.
Well let's just say first that one doesn't need to be a pharmacist or a doctor to have an opinion on an essentially social issue. But I personally do belong to one of the two professions mentioned. First of all I want to address a claim made on the previous post that HIV infections have decreased dramatically since prep. Actually they haven't. Prep was introduced in 2013 if I am not mistaken and new infections have been decreasing until 2016 approximately and then they have remained stable. That stable however hides the fact that there is continuous decrease in older ages and INCREASE in the rate of new infections in younger ages (i.e. people more likely to have access and knowledge to preventive measures other than condoms). Meanwhile new HIV infections keep falling in third world countries (i.e. countries less likely to have access to expensive preventive methods). I am not saying prep is to blame. But I am saying that your data are completely wrong and that the laissez-faire culture about HIV that prep and big pharma are both part of are to blame. HIV is a virus. The more it goes around the more likely is to mutate and the more mutations the highest the likelihood of another epidemic. Simple as that.

Now on to the rest of the post. We are actually advising against the use of birth control pill as the sole means of pregnancy prophylaxis for people not in an exclusive relation because of the danger of getting stds. That's the same problem as with prep but in the case of prep we are talking about a community far more likely to have multiple sex partners in comparison to the general population i.e. a scenario for disaster. Other than that let's not compare increasing a hormone naturally found in the body (which is not without side effects too) with taking regularly a substance not found in the body.

I would also like to point out that many many medicine are marketed as safe only to be withdrawn years or decades later or to have new contraindications/side effects/precautions added. The last phase of clinical trials is unfortunately the introduction to the general public. Just this month the EU's medicine agency proposed new warnings (in black box) for fluoroquinolones. That is a class of antibiotics in widespread use since the 80s (i.e. way longer than prep). Those new warnings were added because a sufficient number of people who took them believing that after more than 30 years in widespread use we know everything there is to know about them were hurt in a serious and sometimes non-reversible manner. So no matter what anyone tells you nobody can guarantee you anything.

In conclusion yes to drug use if you are sick and a big no to recreational drug use from me. And prep is just that. Recreational drug use.
User avatar
jio
Legend
 
Posts: 13601
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009

Postby clh_hilary » Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:55 pm

jio wrote:And yes it might be a voluntary decision but you are subject in involuntary and undeclared medical advertisement long before you make your voluntary decision. And that's just plain wrong.
As it is the case for practically everything else...Fashion, entertainment, going to university, having a political opinion.

What is your point? The modern world is not for you?

jio wrote:Actually this whole part of your post is completely wrong. There HAS been an increase in all other STDs in western Europe and the United States/Canada (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stds-on-th ... rd-levels/ (and I don't wanna hear anyone judging the source. I don't care about the article I am just giving data) the last few years and that's mainly because of people no longer using condoms as much because they are not that afraid of the big std. The problem is that with more virus going around it is far more possible for more strong and potentially resistant strains of such viruses and bacteria to appear. That already seems to be happening with gonorrhea for example. Also the part of my post about big pharma money is valid. Condoms provide no business for big pharma. Truvada/prep/pep/antiretrovirals/antibiotics/whatever= big business.
1. Yes, there have been increases on some, but not all, STDs, but it's utterly ridiculous that you're attempting to link it to a small portion of PrEP users. People are not using condoms because they were not using it for other reasons, such as the fact that HIV is not seen as a death sentence any more, not because of the medication that the overwhelming majority of people have never heard of. Keep in mind also the fact that 2/3 of all PrEP users are in the United States, and not Western Europe.

2. The drug resistance point is moot. As a medical profession, you should know very well that it's bound to happen.

But you know what the biggest problems are?

A. Gonorrhoea can be and is transmitted through oral sex, and most people do not use a condom for oral sex, condom or not - in fact, the more resistant strand of it seemed to have been from his throat. I have to assume you're not saying PrEP users are going around licking vaginas;
B. there's one case of this so-called super gonorrhoea, from a heterosexual man not on PrEP - meaning linking it to PrEP is simply both wrong and unfair;
C. for all the fear, the man has been successfully cured (https://www.self.com/story/super-gonorrhea-what-to-know), without using any groundbreaking drug or technology.

jio wrote:The kidney part is totally wrong as another user pointed out.
Wrong in what way exactly? Or have you not been able to read the comments?

I already said that it affected the kidney function of a small portion of people, and that my issue was with the claim on long-term effect.

jio wrote:Moreover HIV medication has been around for 3 decades. That is not the current medication however. Truvada for example has been used for HIV treatment for less than 20 years now. The drugs used initially for HIV are not as widely used today. There are antibiotics currently getting new contraindications that have been out way longer than 30 (nevermind 20) years. Also in 3 decades there is simply not enough people getting an HIV infection in the 90s and getting really old on continuous antiretroviral use to have a big enough sample to be sure of potential long term side effects. That makes the claim that HIV-positive people on antiretroviral have almost the same life expectancy and quality of life with HIV-negative people a lie. We simply do not know. That said I do support antiretroviral use for HIV-positive people. It's a life-saver and also a preventive measure in spreading the disease. I do not support the use of preventive meds on healthy people when there is a much safer alternative.
Dr Jill Stein is that you? Wi-Fi has been around for only 20 years, how can we know if there are no long-term effects?

The issue with your "condom-only" idea is that it just didn't work in reality. Absteinance could have worked too in theory, but it didn't. Because simply didn't use condoms nearly enough for whatever reason, even with an inflated reported rate.

jio wrote:First of all I want to address a claim made on the previous post that HIV infections have decreased dramatically since prep. Actually they haven't. Prep was introduced in 2013 if I am not mistaken and new infections have been decreasing until 2016 approximately and then they have remained stable. That stable however hide the fact that there is continuous decrease in older ages and INCREASE in the rate of new infections in younger ages (i.e. people more likely to have access and knowledge to preventive measures other than condoms). Meanwhile new HIV infections keep falling in third world countries (i.e. countries less likely to have access to expensive preventive methods). I am not saying prep is to blame. But I am saying that your data are completely wrong and that the laissez-faire culture about HIV that prep and big pharma are both part of are to blame. HIV is a virus. The more it goes around the more likely is to mutate and the more mutations the highest the likelihood of another epidemic. Simple as that.
My data?

https://www.poz.com/article/rising-prep ... ted-states
http://www.aidsmap.com/PrEP-use-linked- ... e/3313879/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanh ... alia-93652

There's no increase among young people either: https://www.hiv.gov/blog/new-hiv-infect ... -six-years

You seem to reading some fantasy fictions instead of studies.

On your last point - PrEP would mean for HIV to be much likely pass around, ie it will work against having another epidemic. Simple as that indeed.

jio wrote:We are actually advising against the use of birth control pill for people not in an exclusive relation because of the danger of getting stds.
If your attitude is the same with birth control pills, I have no issue with that, as you're at least logically consistent.

jio wrote:That's the same problem as with prep but in the case of prep we are talking about a community far more likely to have multiple sex partners in comparison to the general population i.e. a scenario for disaster.
One of the links above will tell you that there's a risk reduction for MSM for using PrEP as opposed to asking them to use condoms consistently.

jio wrote:I would also like to point out that many many medicine are marketed as safe only to be withdrawn years or decades later or to have new contraindications/side effects/precautions added. The last phase of clinical trials is unfortunately the introduction to the general public. Just this month the EU's medicine agency proposed new warning for fluoroquinolones. That is a class of antibiotics in widespread use since the 80s (i.e. way longer than prep). So no matter what anyone tells you nobody can guarantee you anything.
As I've said, it'd be the same as arguing against Wi-Fi, microwave, and GM food. "Nobody can guarantee you anything".
WhatTheHell wrote:Voice of the truth here!! :(
User avatar
clh_hilary
Superstar
 
Posts: 5021
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009
Location: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Postby jio » Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:12 pm

Well most of your post seems to suggest that prep is an unavoidable part of modern life comparable to wifi and microwave. And you are right in that's how it seems that a certain part of society (the part prep is marketed to) is thinking. And that's the problem.

I will just talk about the links you provided. So according to the links you provided HIV infections rate are dropping from 2008 (in one link) to 2016 and from earlier than 2008 (in the other link) to 2016 and that's thanks to prep. That's great except... prep was licensed only in 2012 (not 2013 as I said earlier) so the decline is DESPITE of and not BECAUSE of prep.

Also the reports you provided do not make any differentiation among groups. Does the decrease come from populations taking prep or not? If you read this https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/reports/surveillance/cdc-hiv-surveillance-report-2015-vol-27.pdf you will see that there has been no decrease in new hiv infections among gay men from 2010 to 2015 (the prep years). So once again the population most likely to be taking prep saw no decrease in infection rates. If you look at younger gay men (even more likely to be taking prep) the infection rates actually rose at the same periodhttps://www.poz.com/article/hiv-rate-among-gay-bi-men-25-34-rose-45-2008-2015 so the argument your reports are making is unfounded.

Also I did not suggest that prep is to blame for super-gonorrhea. I suggested that letting other stds increase is dangerous. You are right about oral sex but the answer to this is obviously not "since you are not protected from the mouth let's stop being protected from our dicks and ass too". That's illogical and ridiculous.

Also you quoted one part of what I said before I edited and clarified it. We advise against the use of the pill as a sole means of prophylaxis...
User avatar
jio
Legend
 
Posts: 13601
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009

Postby clh_hilary » Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:38 am

jio wrote:Well most of your post seems to suggest that prep is an unavoidable part of modern life comparable to wifi and microwave.
Nope. I'm comparing them because there are still people who think we don't know about the long-term effects of microwaves and Wi-Fi and vaccines. If you do hold the opinion that microwaves and Wi-Fi and vaccines have unknown long-term effects, then once again, you are being logically consistent and I have no issue with that.

Microwaves are definitely not an unavoidable part of modern life, by the way. I have not used one in years even as a young adult, and I do not even have one at home.

jio wrote:I will just talk about the links you provided. So according to the links you provided HIV infections rate are dropping from 2008 (in one link) to 2016 and from earlier than 2008 (in the other link) to 2016 and that's thanks to prep. That's great except... prep was licensed only in 2012 (not 2013 as I said earlier) so the decline is DESPITE of and not BECAUSE of prep...Also the reports you provided do not make any differentiation among groups.
To use "despite of" [sic] here is such deceptive use of language, as if PrEP would've theoretically led to an increase in HIV infections...

Also, your selective reading...

https://www.poz.com/article/rising-prep ... ted-states
The increased use of Truvada (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine) as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the United States between 2012 and 2016 was associated with a decline in HIV diagnoses...The investigators obtained HIV diagnosis data spanning 2012 to 2016 for all 50 states plus the District of Columbia from the National HIV Surveillance System. They calculated diagnosis rates based on U.S. Census data...The national U.S. diagnosis rate per 100,000 people age 13 and older declined from 15.7 diagnoses in 2012 to 14.5 diagnoses in 2016, for an estimated decline of 1.6 percent per year...Among states in the highest quintile for PrEP use rates, HIV diagnoses per 100,000 residents declined from 19.4 in 2012 to 17.4 in 2013, 15.6 in 2014, 14.1 in 2015 and 13.6 in 2016. Meanwhile, the PrEP use rate per 1,000 people considered good PrEP candidates increased from 12 in 2012 to 19 in 2013, 42 in 2014, 87 in 2015 and 110 in 2016...Among states in the lowest quintile for PrEP use rates, HIV diagnoses per 100,000 residents generally increased from 7.51 in 2012 to 7.48 in 2013, 7.57 in 2014, 7.75 in 2015 and 7.94 in 2016...In the 10 states in the highest quintile of PrEP use, the HIV diagnosis rate declined by an estimated 4.7 percent per year, while the bottom 10 states saw an estimated 0.9 percent annual increase in their HIV diagnosis rate...“PrEP uptake,” the study authors concluded, “was significantly associated with a decline in HIV diagnoses in the USA, and this association is independent of levels of viral suppression. U.S. states should take steps to increase the use of PrEP among persons with indications [for its use] and should continue efforts to increase HIV viral suppression for people living with HIV.”
http://theconversation.com/is-truvada-p ... alia-93652
Early signs of success in PrEP’s ability to reduce HIV infections at a population level have come from New South Wales where, remarkably, about 9,000 people have enrolled in the PrEP implementation study, EPIC. Recently, NSW reported a 32% decline in new HIV infections and a 25% overall statewide decline in new HIV diagnoses following the rollout of EPIC in 2016.
The link concerning the rates from 2008 was, as clearly stated, used only to correct your clearly false claim that there has been an [i]increase among young people.

jio wrote:you will see that there has been no decrease in new hiv infections among gay men from 2010 to 2015 (the prep years).
You can't even read numbers?

Male-to-male sexual contact: 14071 (2010) --> 10047 (2015)

Are you just trolling? Which number is bigger? Is that an increase or a decrease?

jio wrote:So once again the population most likely to be taking prep saw no decrease in infection rates.
You have no research data to back you up, and you are basing it on your guess, which is wrong anyway. The research from Emory University has already taken into account of the likihood of the groups taking PrEP. But you've chosen to read a random 5% of the report which mentioned the number 2008, discarding the relevant 95%.

jio wrote:If you look at younger gay men (even more likely to be taking prep) the infection rates actually rose at the same periodhttps://www.poz.com/article/hiv-rate-among-gay-bi-men-25-34-rose-45-2008-2015
Nope.

In the United States, PrEP is not provided for free, and only until recently are there more and more insurance companies including that in their plan. Thus, it's more likely that older people, ie people who are likely to be richer, are better early PrEP users.

Not to mention like you said, this is from 2008 to 2015, including 2008-2012 when PrEP didn't exist. It's entirely possible that PrEP has brought the rates down 2012-2015 (as research have suggested that it has), but there's an increase from 2008 to 2012 that was bigger than the decrease that came later.

But you know what? I don't even have to make guesses here - the research above has concluded the link between the HIV infection decrease and PrEP use by analyzing their data using also how common PrEP was within those groups. But for some reason, you chose not to read those parts.

jio wrote:so the argument your reports are making is unfounded.
Not my argument. Argument from medical researchers. Argument from what we can see now know much more than you do, even though you have chosen to ignore the content of their actual research.

jio wrote:Also I did not suggest that prep is to blame for super-gonorrhea. I suggested that letting other stds increase is dangerous. You are right about oral sex but the answer to this is obviously not "since you are not protected from the mouth let's stop being protected from our dicks and ass too". That's illogical and ridiculous.
Using PrEP is not "letting STDs increase". If one is to take PrEP with the proper programme, one would need to have a test every 3 months.

This means STDs are going to be discovered much earlier than they otherwise would have been, and their spread limited.

And the issue isn't about "stop protecting our dicks and ass", but that condom use has never actually been consistent to begin with. Sure, there is risk compensation for other STDs, but we are talking about one that comes with very regular and frequent check-ups, one that would virtually eliminate the chance of contracting HIV even in the cases of rape, one that comes with a theoretical benefit of getting the STDs caught and cured within the community to begin with.
WhatTheHell wrote:Voice of the truth here!! :(
User avatar
clh_hilary
Superstar
 
Posts: 5021
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009
Location: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Postby jio » Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:18 pm

I will not argue anymore because I feel like talking to the wall. That's my last post on the subject.

1) it's a usual tactic in arguments for opponents to try and connect their side of the argument with other generally accepted positive values and/or connect the opponents' side of the arguments with other generally unaccepted negative values. And that's what you did in your posts. You try to somehow connect my disapproval of prep with disapproval of wifi/modernity/vaccines/the pill/ whatever. I am actually pro-vaccine and pro-modernity so I don't appreciate such tactics

2) The data are very very clear. 2008 45 000 people contracted HIV/ 2015 38 000 contracted it. 2010 26000 gay men contracted it/same for 2015. 2008 7000 young gay men contracted HIV/in 2015 10000 young gay men contracted it. So please don't change the numbers they are clear. After that you can go ahead and argue what you like. You can argue that straight people are mostly using prep and gays don't so the increase in gay infections is due to them not using prep. You can do so if you like. But it's not the truth.

3) The argument that data started before 2012 is also illogical if you wanna promote prep. You argued that prep is responsible for falling infection rates. I argued that it isn't. And there are no falling rates from its use. Actually there has been absolutely no effect in HIV transmission before and after the introduction of prep but there is increase in all other stds. So nobody can argue that prep changed the course of HIV because it clearly hasn't.

4) Sorry but everything else you said is arguing for the sake of arguing. First you say condoms do not prevent stds because they can be transmitted from the mouth too but you go ahead to support prep as if it is a solution to that problem when it offers 0 protection against oral transmission of stds other than hiv (whose oral transmission has a negligible likelihood). You argue that people do not have to use prep all the time then you say it's an excellent protection against transmission of hiv through rape (meaning that you have to use it all the time assuming you do not know when you are going to get raped). You also seem to consider more std infections ok as long as they are discovered early? Seriously?

So I refuse to continue arguing. You can have your opinion but... people do not take prep because they feel unprotected by condoms. They take prep so they can return to unsafe sex practices like bb etc. And that's recreational drug use no matter how one wants to sugarcoat it.
User avatar
jio
Legend
 
Posts: 13601
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009

Postby clh_hilary » Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:18 pm

jio wrote:I feel like talking to the wall.
Interesting. Because I wasn't the one who couldn't read the actual findings of a published research.

jio wrote:1) it's a usual tactic in arguments for opponents to try and connect their side of the argument with other generally accepted positive values and/or connect the opponents' side of the arguments with other generally unaccepted negative values.
Because that tests your logic consistency. If your argument is that 20 years are not enough to know the long-term effects, we look at other things that have existed for also 20 years.

jio wrote:2) The data are very very clear. 2008 45 000 people contracted HIV/ 2015 38 000 contracted it. 2010 26000 gay men contracted it/same for 2015. 2008 7000 young gay men contracted HIV/in 2015 10000 young gay men contracted it. So please don't change the numbers they are clear. After that you can go ahead and argue what you like. You can argue that straight people are mostly using prep and gays don't so the increase in gay infections is due to them not using prep. You can do so if you like.
Isn't that interesting that in one post you claim that numbers from 2008-2012 cannot be used to suggest PrEP's effectiveness, but somehow here you are saying they can be used to say it's not effective?

A published research from an actual university has analyzed those numbers, but found that within communities that have a higher PrEP prevalence, there has been a decrease from 2012 to 2015.

jio wrote:But it's not the truth.
Now, the above is the truth. I do think you're an expert in walls, since you clearly are one, and cannot even read the research when I bolded the parts for you.

jio wrote:3) The argument that data started before 2012 is also illogical if you wanna promote prep. You argued that prep is responsible for falling infection rates. I argued that it isn't. And there are no falling rates from its use. Actually there has been absolutely no effect in HIV transmission before and after the introduction of prep but there is increase in all other stds. So nobody can argue that prep changed the course of HIV because it clearly hasn't.
Yes, it has. I have quoted and bolded the parts from the published research for you, but you keep refusing to read it.

jio wrote:First you say condoms do not prevent stds because they can be transmitted from the mouth too but you go ahead to support prep as if it is a solution to that problem when it offers 0 protection against oral transmission of stds other than hiv (whose oral transmission has a negligible likelihood).
I pointed out the fact that they are commonly transmitted through oral sex - a fact.

I also pointed out the fact that condom use has not been consistent - a fact.

Once again, your selective reading has failed you.

jio wrote:You argue that people do not have to use prep all the time then you say it's an excellent protection against transmission of hiv through rape (meaning that you have to use it all the time assuming you do not know when you are going to get raped).
I assume you have heard of stealthing? You would have expected the sex, and thus taken the medication beforehand.

Also, you have a deep flaw in your logic here. The fact remains that nobody would have to take it all the time. You can stop it at any time. Of course once they've stopped it, they wouldn't be able to protect themselves against rape, but that's just the same as using a condom.

Are you going to say people would have to be wearing a condom on their dick 24/7? No, because like with PrEP, they can choose when they want to use it.

jio wrote:You also seem to consider more std infections ok as long as they are discovered early?
If everyone has their STD treated, there will not be STDs any more. Without the check-ups, they will very unlikely get treated. But go for with your strawman's argument.

jio wrote:So I refuse to continue arguing. You can have your opinion but... people do not take prep because they feel unprotected by condoms. They take prep so they can return to unsafe sex practices like bb etc. And that's recreational drug use no matter how one wants to sugarcoat it.
You refuse to continue arguing because you realized that the facts are against you, and you cannot keep pretending you couldn't read the parts I quoted and bolded for you.

And if you are a medical professional, perhaps you should really try to read medical research, or recommendations from for example the World Health Organization, which has now set a goal of getting 3 million people on PrEP.

These are some of the publication: https://www.who.int/hiv/pub/prep/en/
WhatTheHell wrote:Voice of the truth here!! :(
User avatar
clh_hilary
Superstar
 
Posts: 5021
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009
Location: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Postby aRat » Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:22 pm

omg those essays
jochen on meeting famous ppl wrote:Janet (very hairy woman)
Beyonce (she was ugly)
User avatar
aRat
Manager
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018
Location: Janet's neck

Postby MusicRecords » Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:48 pm

aRat wrote:omg those essays
Ikr? :lol: :lol: what a snoozefest
Follow me on Instagram

The ONLY user to have a thread beat Mariah on the Ukmix Hot 100

#KING
User avatar
MusicRecords
HRH King Nick III
 
Posts: 13360
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012
Location: New York City & Vienna

Postby jio » Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:02 pm

I officially give up
User avatar
jio
Legend
 
Posts: 13601
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009

Postby clh_hilary » Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:32 am

jio wrote:I officially give up
"last post"

The below has been posted to you, quoted to you, and bolded for you. But you have continued to refuse to acknowledge its existence, even as it addresses every single one of your questions regarding the data. You gave up looooong ago.

The increased use of Truvada (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine) as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the United States between 2012 and 2016 was associated with a decline in HIV diagnoses...The investigators obtained HIV diagnosis data spanning 2012 to 2016 for all 50 states plus the District of Columbia from the National HIV Surveillance System. They calculated diagnosis rates based on U.S. Census data...The national U.S. diagnosis rate per 100,000 people age 13 and older declined from 15.7 diagnoses in 2012 to 14.5 diagnoses in 2016, for an estimated decline of 1.6 percent per year...Among states in the highest quintile for PrEP use rates, HIV diagnoses per 100,000 residents declined from 19.4 in 2012 to 17.4 in 2013, 15.6 in 2014, 14.1 in 2015 and 13.6 in 2016. Meanwhile, the PrEP use rate per 1,000 people considered good PrEP candidates increased from 12 in 2012 to 19 in 2013, 42 in 2014, 87 in 2015 and 110 in 2016...Among states in the lowest quintile for PrEP use rates, HIV diagnoses per 100,000 residents generally increased from 7.51 in 2012 to 7.48 in 2013, 7.57 in 2014, 7.75 in 2015 and 7.94 in 2016...In the 10 states in the highest quintile of PrEP use, the HIV diagnosis rate declined by an estimated 4.7 percent per year, while the bottom 10 states saw an estimated 0.9 percent annual increase in their HIV diagnosis rate...“PrEP uptake,” the study authors concluded, “was significantly associated with a decline in HIV diagnoses in the USA, and this association is independent of levels of viral suppression. U.S. states should take steps to increase the use of PrEP among persons with indications [for its use] and should continue efforts to increase HIV viral suppression for people living with HIV.”
But no, when you read the above, the only word exist for you was "2008".
Last edited by clh_hilary on Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
WhatTheHell wrote:Voice of the truth here!! :(
User avatar
clh_hilary
Superstar
 
Posts: 5021
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009
Location: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Return to The Lounge