5 Things to Know About the First Drug to Prevent HIV

[Malthus]

It may be a reasonable concern, but the drug is supposed to be prescribed together with a whole plan of prevention, and the article claims that studies have shown no higher risk.

However, patients who receive Truvada prophylactically will be expected to participate in a comprehensive HIV protection plan involving regular HIV testing, condom use and prevention counseling and support. Clinical trials have not shown that users are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior.

In these circumstances, whatever reasonable concern that may have existed is addressed.

[Malthus]

In my high school health class we had an instructor who openly advocated that we engage in anal sex rather than vaginal. We were awestruck. 

... and then he offered to demonstrate. 

[Neil]

The concern is that people who do those things will be less likely to use condoms because they wrongly believe the drug will prevent them from getting AIDS.

With all the drug-resistant VD going around these days, they'd be crazy to do that.

[FunkMonk]

In my high school health class we had an instructor who openly advocated that we engage in anal sex rather than vaginal. We were awestruck. 

... and then he offered to demonstrate. 

It was a she. 

[garbon]

You should work in the drug industry.  You would make a hell of a pitch man.

In one study risk of infection was lowered 42%.  And that was in a group that was using condoms - or at least told to do so.  That is a long way off from "preventing".  Given your response I can see a great deal of justification in the fear that people will begin to think that the drug really does create a kind of immunity.

And it is good you are a lawyer as you selectively ignore that which is inconvenient as it was that for the straight couple study.

And then of course those that took it were not seen to engage in more risky behavior (edit: Malthus caught that)

Anyway, don't worry - I'm not running off to have unprotected sex with multiple partners - Truvada or not.

The concern is not that people will engage in risky behaviour such as having multiple partners or having sex with people they know have AIDs.  The concern is that people who do those things will be less likely to use condoms because they wrongly believe the drug will prevent them from getting AIDS.

Probably not likely. You still need to get a prescription which will mean you are told about the risks. Besides, I don't really see the alternative. Block a drug from being prescribed because people could misuse it?

[stjaba]

I think another concern is: Who will pay for this? Truvada apparently costs around $14,000 per year. Truvada is already being prescribed to help treat HIV, and I imagine that insurance companies are fine paying for that.

But $14,000 as a preventative measure, when condoms are comparatively  so cheap? I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies refuse to pay for it.

[Malthus]

In my high school health class we had an instructor who openly advocated that we engage in anal sex rather than vaginal. We were awestruck. 

... and then he offered to demonstrate. 

It was a she. 

Just call her "Peggy". 

[Iormlund]

In my high school health class we had an instructor who openly advocated that we engage in anal sex rather than vaginal. We were awestruck. 

We had a really creepy sex ed instructor when I was 15. First thing he did was get all pretty girls to sit in the first row, then proceeded to completely ignore the rest of us (to our delight).

Half into the semester he was arrested for statutory rape.

[garbon]

In other news there is going to be an at home HIV test soon. That seems potentially too unnerving to do at home by oneself.

[Admiral Yi]

Ok I promised to be nice to you Yi.  So 

You made no such promise to Crazy Canuck or Beeb, so let 'er rip.

[Jacob]

You should work in the drug industry.  You would make a hell of a pitch man.

What do you mean "should"? garbon makes all his money working for big pharma, of course he shills for them.

[Neil]

I think another concern is: Who will pay for this? Truvada apparently costs around $14,000 per year. Truvada is already being prescribed to help treat HIV, and I imagine that insurance companies are fine paying for that.

But $14,000 as a preventative measure, when condoms are comparatively  so cheap? I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies refuse to pay for it.

Gays have disposable income.

[crazy canuck]

And it is good you are a lawyer.

Its always good.

Probably not likely. You still need to get a prescription which will mean you are told about the risks. Besides, I don't really see the alternative. Block a drug from being prescribed because people could misuse it?

It has nothing to do with "misuse".   A valid concern has been raised that people might misconstrue what this drug actually will do.  You yourself have done it in this thread.  Seems a valid concern to me.

[katmai]

You should work in the drug industry.  You would make a hell of a pitch man.

What do you mean "should"? garbon makes all his money working for big pharma, of course he shills for them.

Is he Shrill when he shills for them?

[garbon]

It has nothing to do with "misuse".   A valid concern has been raised that people might misconstrue what this drug actually will do.  You yourself have done it in this thread.  Seems a valid concern to me.

I haven't though. It can serve as a preventive. Sort of akin to how naltrexone alone can't treat alcoholism.