5 Things to Know About the First Drug to Prevent HIV

[dps]

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.

A valid concern?  Probably, yes.  But that means that users of the drug should be educated on how to use it, not that it should be withheld from them.

Any medicine can be misused, but unless you require that all medications be adminisitered (not just prescribed) by a physician, there's not much that you can do about it.  Actually, even that won't completely prevent problems, because doctors make mistakes, too.

[garbon]

Sorry, dps, but CC is more concerned with making me look like an idiot here to pay attention to facts and/or the article.

[katmai]

Sorry, dps, but CC is more concerned with making me look like an idiot here to pay attention to facts and/or the article.

Always been my motto!

[dps]

Sorry, dps, but CC is more concerned with making me look like an idiot here to pay attention to facts and/or the article.

Well, I suppose that is the Languish way.

If this was Chicago instead of Languish, I guess you'd have to send one of his to the morgue.

[garbon]

If this was Chicago instead of Languish, I guess you'd have to send one of his to the morgue.

Thankfully I'm not Marti - though I think he wanted to do them all.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

Yeah, I don't know if that's a good idea or not.

[sbr]

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.

Yeah, I don't know if that's a good idea or not.

No, there should probably be a trained professional around if someone gets a positive test.

[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.

Yeah, I don't know if that's a good idea or not.

No, there should probably be a trained professional around if someone gets a positive test.

That's what the article I read talked about. People aren't ready to hear that news on their own.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, it's one thing to home test for blood sugar, cholesterol or even pregnancy, but a home test for HIV should need more than a "Get thee to an apothecary" label on the instructions.
Not a good idea for home testing.

[Syt]

Anyway, I'm about the truth. If the physicians say your drug is crap, my research will report that back.

That was my old employer's line. "We only collect the data for pharma, we don't interpret it."

[crazy canuck]

What we are talking about is drug efficacy.  If there was no downside risk to the drug then I would agree with you that there is no harm in allowing people to take it  - other than the cost.  Here the real risk is that widespread use of the drug may create a drug resistant form of HIV.

Given the potential low "preventative" value of this drug and the potential downside risks of creating a more deadly form of HIV through its use the approval of this drug is certainly not as straight forward as you would have it.

75% isn't bad for you straight folks. Besides, the drug is already being used and apparently the powers that be (the FDA) disagree with you that there is high risk of creating a drug resistant strain.

And has already been pointed out - the drug isn't cheap so it probably won't be handed out like candy (aka antiobiotics). If anything the real advance here is that we are getting closer to real knock out meds.

The approval doesnt mean that the points raised are incorrect - as much as you pharma drug pushers would like to make it so.

[Berkut]

Yeah, it's one thing to home test for blood sugar, cholesterol or even pregnancy, but a home test for HIV should need more than a "Get thee to an apothecary" label on the instructions.
Not a good idea for home testing.

Lord knows we cannot possibly leave that up to individuals to determine for themselves.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, it's one thing to home test for blood sugar, cholesterol or even pregnancy, but a home test for HIV should need more than a "Get thee to an apothecary" label on the instructions.
Not a good idea for home testing.

Lord knows we cannot possibly leave that up to individuals to determine for themselves.

I can appreciate your Libertarian streak and all, but really now. 
I mean, I'm sure you can handle the knowledge of a death sentence in your bathroom at 2am with nothing less than complete courage, calm resoluteness, and a definitive sense of renewed purpose, but maybe--just maybe--others might not without the guidance of a clinical professional to discuss possible options.

In any case, stop being such a fucking Ron Paul dickhead.

[Berkut]

Yeah, it's one thing to home test for blood sugar, cholesterol or even pregnancy, but a home test for HIV should need more than a "Get thee to an apothecary" label on the instructions.
Not a good idea for home testing.

Lord knows we cannot possibly leave that up to individuals to determine for themselves.

I can appreciate your Libertarian streak and all, but really now. 
I mean, I'm sure you can handle the knowledge of a death sentence in your bathroom at 2am with nothing less than complete courage, calm resoluteness, and a definitive sense of renewed purpose, but maybe--just maybe--others might not without the guidance of a clinical professional to discuss possible options.

In any case, stop being such a fucking Ron Paul dickhead.

Horseshit.

You have no idea what other people can or cannot handle.

If YOU don't think you can handle that information, then don't buy the test - trot off to your doctor or nanny who can hold your hand and tell you.

But don't demand that everyone else be as coddled as you insist on being.

Once again we see how much most people actually care about actual liberty - not fucking at all.

Some people are too dumb to follow directions well enough to take medication properly, so we should have the state deny it to everyone.

Some people might not handle the news that they have HIV well, so lets make sure millions of people never find out they even fucking have it at all because we don't want a inexpensive and private test available to people.

And most importantly, lets make our laws and regulations configured to the least common possible denominator of human society, and simply give up our need to think for ourselves to the political elite to do it for us, to decide for us what we need and do not need, what information is safe for us to possess, and what we ought to think.

[Berkut]

In any case, stop being such a fucking Ron Paul dickhead.

...and more specifically..."fuck no".

I'll never stop "being a Ron Paul dickhead" if that means actually thinking that the word "liberty" means *something*.