Languish.org

Busting that topic out for Marti:

http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/17/truvada-5-things-to-know-about-the-first-drug-to-prevent-hiv/

QuoteDoctors now have another weapon against HIV/AIDS in their arsenal, and it's a potent one. For the first time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a drug treatment that will prevent infection in healthy people.

The drug, called Truvada, which is already approved for the treatment of HIV in infected patients, works by lowering the amount of virus circulating in people's blood. But clinical trials show that it can also protect uninfected high-risk people from acquiring the virus, if they take the drug daily before and after exposure.

The approval is controversial. Some public health experts argue that allowing the drug to be used for prevention will foster a false sense of security among users, leading people to believe mistakenly that they are immune to the virus and reduce their use of condoms. However, the FDA determined that the benefits of expanding the pool of people who may use Truvada to protect against HIV made it worth approving. Here's what you need to know.

Who can take Truvada?
The drug, made by Gilead Sciences Inc., is approved for healthy, uninfected people who are at high risk of contracting HIV through sex. These include sex workers and people with partners who are HIV-positive or engage in high-risk behaviors, such as using IV drugs.

How effective is the drug in preventing HIV?
In one study, healthy gay and bisexual men who took Truvada daily and were counseled about safe sex practices lowered their risk of becoming infected by up to 42%. In another study involving heterosexual couples in which one partner was HIV-positive, the uninfected partner had a 75% lower risk of contracting HIV if they took Truvada.

Does Truvada cure AIDS?
No. The drug can treat people who are infected with HIV by lowering the amount of virus in their bodies and slowing down the progression of the disease. In healthy, uninfected people, the drug can thwart HIV's ability to take hold in healthy cells and start an infection, by blocking the activity of an enzyme that the virus needs to replicate.

Why is the approval controversial?
Some experts believe that healthy people may not take the drug correctly — it needs to be taken daily to be effective — which would encourage HIV to become resistant to the medication. Public health officials also worry that people may engage in more risky behaviors when they are on the drug, believing they are protected completely against HIV, which they are not. 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.

Researchers also can't explain why in one study involving female sex workers, those who took Truvada to prevent HIV were not protected against infection. The authors think that the participants did not take the drug in the right doses, but it's also possible that something about the vaginal environment makes the drug less effective.

Why is the approval important?
Approving a drug to prevent HIV marks a big step toward controlling the spread of HIV and AIDS, not just in the U.S. but worldwide as well. Once Truvada is used as a preventive measure domestically, U.S.-backed AIDS programs in the developing world may also begin to roll out the pill for healthy people who are at high risk of contracting HIV. Public health experts are eager to build up all effective prevention strategies, noting that the only way to stop the epidemic is by preventing new infections as well as treating existing ones.

Is there anything more revolting than the idea that something that can help people ought to be denied them because some fucking bureaucrat thinks it will "encourage risky behavior!" and therefore should be restricted?

That kind of shit makes me crazy.

I remember the HIV informational classes they gave in high school, that were largely full of known bullshit and dishonesty because kids are just too stupid to risk telling the truth.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2012, 03:54:26 PM
I remember the HIV informational classes they gave in high school, that were largely full of known bullshit and dishonesty because kids are just too stupid to risk telling the truth.

I remember being taught in high school that anal sex was bad as that part of the body had been designed as an exit only zone. <_<

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2012, 03:54:26 PM
Is there anything more revolting than the idea that something that can help people ought to be denied them because some fucking bureaucrat thinks it will "encourage risky behavior!" and therefore should be restricted?

That kind of shit makes me crazy.

I think it's a very reasonable concern.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2012, 04:02:16 PM
I think it's a very reasonable concern.

:mellow:

Ok I promised to be nice to you Yi.  So  :zipped:

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2012, 03:54:26 PM
Is there anything more revolting than the idea that something that can help people ought to be denied them because some fucking bureaucrat thinks it will "encourage risky behavior!" and therefore should be restricted?

That kind of shit makes me crazy.

It makes you crazy that public health officials are concerned that people will wrongly think the drug makes them immune?  Epecially given the title of the thread leaves one with exactly that kind of misleading and false understanding?

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2012, 04:26:08 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2012, 03:54:26 PM
Is there anything more revolting than the idea that something that can help people ought to be denied them because some fucking bureaucrat thinks it will "encourage risky behavior!" and therefore should be restricted?

That kind of shit makes me crazy.

It makes you crazy that public health officials are concerned that people will wrongly think the drug makes them immune?  Epecially given the title of the thread leaves one with exactly that kind of misleading and false understanding?

Well it does prevent HIV - just not perfectly.

Also, I'm not so sure that there is a large intersection between people who want to engage in unsafe sex with multiple partners but don't do so because their isn't a prevention method from contracting HIV.  After all, it isn't the only STD that one can get from unsafe sex.../I figure most who want to engage in unsafe sex with multiple partners are already doing so.

In fact, the three groups they note the drug has been considered approved for - already participate in their target behaviors.

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 03:57:07 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2012, 03:54:26 PM
I remember the HIV informational classes they gave in high school, that were largely full of known bullshit and dishonesty because kids are just too stupid to risk telling the truth.

I remember being taught in high school that anal sex was bad as that part of the body had been designed as an exit only zone. <_<

Well, it is a bit unhealthy.  Sorry that hurt your self-esteem :(

Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2012, 04:36:19 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 03:57:07 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2012, 03:54:26 PM
I remember the HIV informational classes they gave in high school, that were largely full of known bullshit and dishonesty because kids are just too stupid to risk telling the truth.

I remember being taught in high school that anal sex was bad as that part of the body had been designed as an exit only zone. <_<

Well, it is a bit unhealthy.  Sorry that hurt your self-esteem :(

Not that unhealthy compared to the millions of other things we do to our bodies. :)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2012, 04:02:16 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2012, 03:54:26 PM
Is there anything more revolting than the idea that something that can help people ought to be denied them because some fucking bureaucrat thinks it will "encourage risky behavior!" and therefore should be restricted?

That kind of shit makes me crazy.

I think it's a very reasonable concern.

It's a real and growing health care concern.  There are several treatments that are effective, but are harmful if not followed correctly.  I was reading an article on it a little while ago (not connected to HIV drugs).  Experience shows that a lot of patients are not very good at following prescriptions religiously.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2012, 04:02:16 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2012, 03:54:26 PM
Is there anything more revolting than the idea that something that can help people ought to be denied them because some fucking bureaucrat thinks it will "encourage risky behavior!" and therefore should be restricted?

That kind of shit makes me crazy.

I think it's a very reasonable concern.

Should be reasonable to limit access to guns as well, right?

Quote from: sbr on July 17, 2012, 04:45:41 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2012, 04:02:16 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2012, 03:54:26 PM
Is there anything more revolting than the idea that something that can help people ought to be denied them because some fucking bureaucrat thinks it will "encourage risky behavior!" and therefore should be restricted?

That kind of shit makes me crazy.

I think it's a very reasonable concern.

Should be reasonable to limit access to guns as well, right?

Of course it is.  But you guys have a silly constitutional amendment that says you can't.

There's nothing in the constitution about drugs.

Quote from: sbr on July 17, 2012, 04:45:41 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2012, 04:02:16 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2012, 03:54:26 PM
Is there anything more revolting than the idea that something that can help people ought to be denied them because some fucking bureaucrat thinks it will "encourage risky behavior!" and therefore should be restricted?

That kind of shit makes me crazy.

I think it's a very reasonable concern.

Should be reasonable to limit access to guns as well, right?

Those don't kill people. :smarty:

Although oddly enough HIV/AIDS doesn't generally do so either if one has proper access to medications...

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 04:31:34 PM
Well it does prevent HIV - just not perfectly

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.

QuoteAlso, I'm not so sure that there is a large intersection between people who want to engage in unsafe sex with multiple partners but don't do so because their isn't a prevention method from contracting HIV.  After all, it isn't the only STD that one can get from unsafe sex.../I figure most who want to engage in unsafe sex with multiple partners are already doing so.

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.

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 03:57:07 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2012, 03:54:26 PM
I remember the HIV informational classes they gave in high school, that were largely full of known bullshit and dishonesty because kids are just too stupid to risk telling the truth.

I remember being taught in high school that anal sex was bad as that part of the body had been designed as an exit only zone. <_<

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.  :lol:

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.

QuoteHowever, 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.

Quote from: FunkMonk on July 17, 2012, 04:52:37 PM
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.  :lol:

... and then he offered to demonstrate.  :D

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2012, 04:49:55 PM
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.

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2012, 04:56:16 PM

Quote from: FunkMonk on July 17, 2012, 04:52:37 PM
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.  :lol:

... and then he offered to demonstrate.  :D

It was a she.  :lol:

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2012, 04:49:55 PM
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 :o (edit: Malthus caught that)

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

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2012, 04:49:55 PM
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?

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.

Quote from: FunkMonk on July 17, 2012, 05:12:10 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2012, 04:56:16 PM

Quote from: FunkMonk on July 17, 2012, 04:52:37 PM
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.  :lol:

... and then he offered to demonstrate.  :D

It was a she.  :lol:

Just call her "Peggy".  ;)

Quote from: FunkMonk on July 17, 2012, 04:52:37 PM
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.  :lol:

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.

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.

Quote from: Valmy on July 17, 2012, 04:09:23 PM
:mellow:

Ok I promised to be nice to you Yi.  So  :zipped:

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

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2012, 04:49:55 PMYou 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.

Quote from: stjaba on July 17, 2012, 05:36:42 PM
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.

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 05:24:16 PM
And it is good you are a lawyer.

Its always good.

Quote
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.

Quote from: Jacob on July 17, 2012, 06:15:01 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2012, 04:49:55 PMYou 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?

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2012, 08:00:01 PM
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.

Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2012, 08:01:32 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 17, 2012, 06:15:01 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2012, 04:49:55 PMYou 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?

That'd just be bad business. :huh:

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

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 08:07:04 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2012, 08:00:01 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 05:50:16 PM
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.

I assume it's the same as the on site clinic test? One dot for ok, two dots for dead. Like a pregnancy test... Only slightly more scary lol

Should be a little skull and crossbones, not a 2nd dot!

Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2012, 08:31:38 PM
Should be a little skull and crossbones, not a 2nd dot!

:D sitting in a room waiting for any dot to show up was bad enough. I preferred the " we'll call you with the resaults" version better lol

Why were you getting HIV tested :o

Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2012, 08:34:13 PM
Why were you getting HIV tested :o

i get tested yearly/semiannually. I live on the edge of the gay area so the walk in clinic has on the best tests :lol:. Did you know syphilis is on the way back? Fun posters to read haha

Actually I think Alaska is leader in VD for US. :shifty:

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2012, 08:21:42 PM
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.

Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2012, 08:39:07 PM
Actually I think Alaska is leader in VD for US. :shifty:

time to get tested Mr. Vector :P

Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2012, 08:39:07 PM
Actually I think Alaska is leader in VD for US. :shifty:

I did see that Pitbull will be making an Alaskan voyage.

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 08:43:33 PM

Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2012, 08:39:07 PM
Actually I think Alaska is leader in VD for US. :shifty:

I did see that Pitbull will be making an Alaskan voyage.

Yeah i spent waaay too much time at that Walmart last fall.

Quote from: HVC on July 17, 2012, 08:42:03 PM

Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2012, 08:39:07 PM
Actually I think Alaska is leader in VD for US. :shifty:

time to get tested Mr. Vector :P

Oh i do, wouldn't wish an STD on anybody....well maybe Marti.

Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2012, 08:45:04 PM

Quote from: HVC on July 17, 2012, 08:42:03 PM

Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2012, 08:39:07 PM
Actually I think Alaska is leader in VD for US. :shifty:

time to get tested Mr. Vector :P

Oh i do, wouldn't wish an STD on anybody....well maybe Marti.

No, if marti got a STD we would suffer more then him. Think of all the threads!

Pfft we can ban his ass.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2012, 08:00:01 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 05:24:16 PM
And it is good you are a lawyer.

Its always good.

Quote
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.

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

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 08:51:29 PM
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!

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 08:51:29 PM
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.

Quote from: dps on July 17, 2012, 08:53:41 PM
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. <_<

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 05:50:16 PM
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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2012, 09:10:36 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 05:50:16 PM
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.

Quote from: sbr on July 17, 2012, 09:56:28 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2012, 09:10:36 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 05:50:16 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 08:07:22 PM
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."

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 08:40:31 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2012, 08:21:42 PM
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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2012, 10:23:48 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:01:30 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2012, 10:23:48 PM
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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 12:09:53 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:01:30 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2012, 10:23:48 PM
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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 12:09:53 AM

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*.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:23:26 AM...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*.

We all think the word "liberty" means *something*; the issue is what that *something* is.

Quote from: Jacob on July 18, 2012, 12:26:28 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:23:26 AM...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*.

We all think the word "liberty" means *something*; the issue is what that *something* is.

Yeah, what most people think it means is nothing practical though.

Seedy is actually arguing that the general public should not have the right to take a test to find out if they have a disease because some people, in his opinion, might not react well to the news under some circumstances.

His solution? Make it impossible for anyone to take the test except under controlled circumstances, that he defines.

You cannot have any actual respect for the concept of liberty in real terms if you are willing to argue that individuals should not be allowed access to information about themselves because you think they cannot handle that information.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:23:26 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 12:09:53 AM

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*.

I guess that means you are in fact "a Ron Paul dickhead".

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2012, 04:26:08 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2012, 03:54:26 PM
Is there anything more revolting than the idea that something that can help people ought to be denied them because some fucking bureaucrat thinks it will "encourage risky behavior!" and therefore should be restricted?

That kind of shit makes me crazy.

It makes you crazy that public health officials are concerned that people will wrongly think the drug makes them immune?  Epecially given the title of the thread leaves one with exactly that kind of misleading and false understanding?

Shouldn't such concerns be addressed through a "health warning" and not an outright denial, though? Especially as this is mainly addressed to people who are in risk anyway (e.g. people living in sero-divergent relationships).

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:40:52 AM
Seedy is actually arguing that the general public should not have the right to take a test to find out if they have a disease because some people, in his opinion, might not react well to the news under some circumstances.

His solution? Make it impossible for anyone to take the test except under controlled circumstances, that he defines.

Oh yeah, and the attendant clinical alternatives, future treatment plans, the risk assessment and education on how to reduce the public safety risk, the attendant health issues that impact the individual such as sex partners, pregnancy, and the variety of future medical implications of HIV, as well as the overall dealing with the behavioral and psychosocial impact of a having a socially stigmatizing health condition that will inevitably result in one's death... that'll all be stuffed in the home test box you can grab at Rite-Aid too, right?

Oh wait, we're talking about freedom.  They can just listen to their bodies.  No sweat.

QuoteYou cannot have any actual respect for the concept of liberty in real terms if you are willing to argue that individuals should not be allowed access to information about themselves because you think they cannot handle that information.

Sometimes you pick the goofiest subjects to plant your Libertard flag.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2012, 10:23:48 PM
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.

I don't know if there's so much difference. I mean think about pregnancy. Like HIV, you get it from unprotected sex, it radically changes your lifestyle, increases your living costs and it's a pain you have to live with for the rest of your life. Mind you, there are people who claim that becoming HIV positive changed their lives for the better, but they are as delusional as people who get pregnant.

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:02:47 AM
I mean think about pregnancy. Like HIV, you get it from unprotected sex, it radically changes your lifestyle, increases your living costs and it's a pain you have to live with for the rest of your life. Mind you, there are people who claim that becoming HIV positive changed their lives for the better, but they are as delusional as people who get pregnant.

Pregnancy, unfortunately in some cases, doesn't kill people.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 01:01:12 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:40:52 AM
Seedy is actually arguing that the general public should not have the right to take a test to find out if they have a disease because some people, in his opinion, might not react well to the news under some circumstances.

His solution? Make it impossible for anyone to take the test except under controlled circumstances, that he defines.

Oh yeah, and the attendant clinical alternatives, future treatment plans, the risk assessment and education on how to reduce the public safety risk, the attendant health issues that impact the individual such as sex partners, pregnancy, and the variety of future medical implications of HIV, as well as the overall dealing with the behavioral and psychosocial impact of a having a socially stigmatizing health condition that will inevitably result in one's death... that'll all be stuffed in the home test box you can grab at Rite-Aid too, right?

No - why does it need to be though?

You might as well argue that kids in school should not be allowed access to condoms because you can't fit all the possible information they may need about sex onto that little package.

Oh wait - people argue exactly that all the time.

Quote

Oh wait, we're talking about freedom.  They can just listen to their bodies.  No sweat.

No, they can listen to whatever they want to listen to - and yes, we are in fact talking about freedom.

Quote

QuoteYou cannot have any actual respect for the concept of liberty in real terms if you are willing to argue that individuals should not be allowed access to information about themselves because you think they cannot handle that information.

Sometimes you pick the goofiest subjects to plant your Libertard flag.

No, actually I am completely consistent. As are you, for that matter - you consistently don't give a shit about liberty, except when you are whining about it somewhere other than right here.

But speaking seriously, both the drug and the home HIV test controversies seem to boil down to liberty vs. ignorance. You solve that easily: you educate. Informed user will be less likely to commit the errors you mention.

It could be that garbon and I are less concerned about this, since the GLBT community has been literally awash with HIV prevention and maintenance education for years now so we don't think there are people who don't know these things - but perhaps it's time to start such campaign for heteros (I don't see why the aforementioned drugs/tests can't have leaflets explaining a lot of this stuff). Especially as in pure numerical values, new HIV infections are on the raise among the straight populace more than in the gay one.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 01:05:25 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:02:47 AM
I mean think about pregnancy. Like HIV, you get it from unprotected sex, it radically changes your lifestyle, increases your living costs and it's a pain you have to live with for the rest of your life. Mind you, there are people who claim that becoming HIV positive changed their lives for the better, but they are as delusional as people who get pregnant.

Pregnancy, unfortunately in some cases, doesn't kill people.

Neither does HIV. :P

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:02:47 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2012, 10:23:48 PM
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.

I don't know if there's so much difference. I mean think about pregnancy. Like HIV, you get it from unprotected sex, it radically changes your lifestyle, increases your living costs and it's a pain you have to live with for the rest of your life. Mind you, there are people who claim that becoming HIV positive changed their lives for the better, but they are as delusional as people who get pregnant.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 01:05:25 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:02:47 AM
I mean think about pregnancy. Like HIV, you get it from unprotected sex, it radically changes your lifestyle, increases your living costs and it's a pain you have to live with for the rest of your life. Mind you, there are people who claim that becoming HIV positive changed their lives for the better, but they are as delusional as people who get pregnant.

Pregnancy, unfortunately in some cases, doesn't kill people.

Yes it does.

And in some cases, HIV does not kill people - hell, in many cases it does not these days.

None of that is the point though - liberty is not about some calcualtion of Seedy's to decide if some information is just too risky for the peasants to have access to - you either buy into the idea that people have the right to decide those kinds of risks themselves, or you buy into the idea that the state is better able to assess those risks for everyone, and should in fact do so and impose a blanket answer for everyone.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 01:11:28 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 01:05:25 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:02:47 AM
I mean think about pregnancy. Like HIV, you get it from unprotected sex, it radically changes your lifestyle, increases your living costs and it's a pain you have to live with for the rest of your life. Mind you, there are people who claim that becoming HIV positive changed their lives for the better, but they are as delusional as people who get pregnant.

Pregnancy, unfortunately in some cases, doesn't kill people.

Yes it does.

And in some cases, HIV does not kill people - hell, in many cases it does not these days.

None of that is the point though - liberty is not about some calcualtion of Seedy's to decide if some information is just too risky for the peasants to have access to - you either buy into the idea that people have the right to decide those kinds of risks themselves, or you buy into the idea that the state is better able to assess those risks for everyone, and should in fact do so and impose a blanket answer for everyone.

So given this thread in particular...

Do you support the idea that prescriptions are unnecessary, and that people ought to be able to "decide these kinds of risks for themselves" and have the right to be given any kind of drug that is only available by presciprtion?

Well as I said, education is the key. Giving ignorant people an access to a drug that can be potentially misused/misinterpreted vs. denying them that drug is a false dichotomy. You have to educate and inform, but that's unfortunately not something that can be accomplished by a simple signature of a bureaucrat under some piece of paper - you need the whole system of health and sex education.

Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 01:14:04 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 01:11:28 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 01:05:25 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:02:47 AM
I mean think about pregnancy. Like HIV, you get it from unprotected sex, it radically changes your lifestyle, increases your living costs and it's a pain you have to live with for the rest of your life. Mind you, there are people who claim that becoming HIV positive changed their lives for the better, but they are as delusional as people who get pregnant.

Pregnancy, unfortunately in some cases, doesn't kill people.

Yes it does.

And in some cases, HIV does not kill people - hell, in many cases it does not these days.

None of that is the point though - liberty is not about some calcualtion of Seedy's to decide if some information is just too risky for the peasants to have access to - you either buy into the idea that people have the right to decide those kinds of risks themselves, or you buy into the idea that the state is better able to assess those risks for everyone, and should in fact do so and impose a blanket answer for everyone.

So given this thread in particular...

Do you support the idea that prescriptions are unnecessary, and that people ought to be able to "decide these kinds of risks for themselves" and have the right to be given any kind of drug that is only available by presciprtion?

No, not at all - but I don't see how that relates to the question.

We aren't talking about whether a given drug should be available as a prescription, we are talking about either

A) Whether a given drug should be available at all, even with a prescription, or
B) Whether a test should be available

I have no problem at all with the basdic idea that certain drugs are to be administered under a professionals supervision.

That is not what is being debated though - if you want to debate that (and can find someone to take the con position), maybe start a new thread?

Berkut, society curtails several freedoms for the greater good. That's what society is, really. A group of people telling you what you can and can't do :D . Personally i wouldn't care if take home test existed, but i can see where it could be a bad idea. Going around all Mel Gibson-y doesn't make sense. There is a large medical costs crisis going on in the states (as i'm sure you're aware :P ), why not let any tom dick and harry perform surgeries or make medications? The patients know the risk of a back alley doctor; why not give them the freedom to choose who to get surgery from?

Yes, i know that's an extreme, but i feel it's a simple way to show that freedom isn't always the ideal someone should strive towards. You have to weigh freedom against risks. "Freedom" can't be a sole reason to allow something.

Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 01:14:04 AMSo given this thread in particular...

Do you support the idea that prescriptions are unnecessary, and that people ought to be able to "decide these kinds of risks for themselves" and have the right to be given any kind of drug that is only available by presciprtion?

This is a straw man. Prescription drugs are drugs that can potentially harm you - not because of the "social" side effects as we consider here but because of them actually being poisonous. Arguing that the anti-HIV drug should be available on prescription (or worse yet banned) because it could cause people to engage in risky behavior thinking themselves immune is like arguing aspirin should be available on prescription because people may think it cures certain diseases it does not cure and thus forego other drugs and die.

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:18:58 AM

Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 01:14:04 AMSo given this thread in particular...

Do you support the idea that prescriptions are unnecessary, and that people ought to be able to "decide these kinds of risks for themselves" and have the right to be given any kind of drug that is only available by presciprtion?

This is a straw man. Prescription drugs are drugs that can potentially harm you - not because of the "social" side effects as we consider here but because of them actually being poisonous. Arguing that the anti-HIV drug should be available on prescription (or worse yet banned) because it could cause people to engage in risky behavior thinking themselves immune is like arguing aspirin should be available on prescription because people may think it cures certain diseases it does not cure and thus forego other drugs and die.

aspirin is a bad example, as it is a very dangerous drug that was only grandfathered in to being over-the-counter.

But in any event - it is an example that some substances need experts to decide whether you should take them or not.  Either you agree with that statement or you do not.

Quote from: HVC on July 18, 2012, 01:17:46 AM
Berkut, society curtails several freedoms for the greater good. That's what society is, really. A group of people telling you what you can and can't do :D . Personally i wouldn't care if take home test existed, but i can see where it could be a bad idea. Going around all Mel Gibson-y doesn't make sense. There is a large medical costs crisis going on in the states (as i'm sure you're aware :P ), why not let any tom dick and harry perform surgeries or make medications? The patients know the risk of a back alley doctor; why not give them the freedom to choose who to get surgery from?

Yes, i know that's an extreme, but i feel it's a simple way to show that freedom isn't always the ideal someone should strive towards. You have to weigh freedom against risks. "Freedom" can't be a sole reason to allow something.

Again it is a completely wrong analogy. The concerns about take-home HIV test are not that the test can be improperly performed and as a result harm the patient (which would be the case with Tom Dick and Harry performing surgeries) but because the test could produce information that the patient is unable to handle/process himself. That's a completely different concern and while valid is preventable to a large extent by including the information in the test what to do/who to contact if you turn out to be HIV positive.

Let's also not forget that in many countries (either due to costs of health service or social stigma associated with HIV status) many people forego going to a doctor to get a HIV test entirely, so again the alternative between going to a doctor to take a HIV test and doing it at home is a false one - very often it is either the home test or nothing at all.

I think you guys argue first principles and ideal dilemmas, while ignoring the realities associated with both health care systems and HIV/sex education in our countries.

But the test isn't being denied to people, just denied to take at home. you can still get the info in a place that has people who know how to council you. Being home alone in the bathroom probably isn't the best place to find out about having HIV. People do stupid shit in situations like that. Like i said, in this particular case i don't really agree, i'm just against Berk's use of freedom to say that the home test should be made available.

Quote from: HVC on July 18, 2012, 01:17:46 AM
Berkut, society curtails several freedoms for the greater good. That's what society is, really. A group of people telling you what you can and can't do :D . Personally i wouldn't care if take home test existed, but i can see where it could be a bad idea. Going around all Mel Gibson-y doesn't make sense. There is a large medical costs crisis going on in the states (as i'm sure you're aware :P ), why not let any tom dick and harry perform surgeries or make medications? The patients know the risk of a back alley doctor; why not give them the freedom to choose who to get surgery from?

Yes, i know that's an extreme, but i feel it's a simple way to show that freedom isn't always the ideal someone should strive towards. You have to weigh freedom against risks. "Freedom" can't be a sole reason to allow something.

Freedom is most definitely an ideal that we should in fact always strive for. It is a fundamental principle, or it should be, and curtailing it should only be done when there are clear and defensible reasons to justify that curtailment.

There are certainly many examples of this, where in fact we do restrict freedom for the greater good of society, or where one individuals freedom conflicts with anothers.

But arguments that we should restrict individual freedom, not because of any danger to society, but because some busybody like Seedy has decided that the information is too dangerous to the individual in question is a load of shit. He is not arguing that letting people take a HIV test at home should not be allowed because it is a risk to others, but because it is a risk (in his mind) to the person taking the test!

There is nothing more dangerous than the man who will take away your freedom for your own good. I think I read something like that somewhere...

Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 01:22:32 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:18:58 AM

Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 01:14:04 AMSo given this thread in particular...

Do you support the idea that prescriptions are unnecessary, and that people ought to be able to "decide these kinds of risks for themselves" and have the right to be given any kind of drug that is only available by presciprtion?

This is a straw man. Prescription drugs are drugs that can potentially harm you - not because of the "social" side effects as we consider here but because of them actually being poisonous. Arguing that the anti-HIV drug should be available on prescription (or worse yet banned) because it could cause people to engage in risky behavior thinking themselves immune is like arguing aspirin should be available on prescription because people may think it cures certain diseases it does not cure and thus forego other drugs and die.

aspirin is a bad example, as it is a very dangerous drug that was only grandfathered in to being over-the-counter.

But in any event - it is an example that some substances need experts to decide whether you should take them or not.  Either you agree with that statement or you do not.

I think noone disagrees that some drugs should be available with an assistance of a medical professional. Not to mention that the anti-HIV drug is to be available that way and the original objection from Berkut (which I support) was that some people were arguing that the drug should not be available at all.

Again, arguing absolutes may be fun but it is not very productive.

Quote from: HVC on July 18, 2012, 01:25:35 AM
But the test isn't being denied to people, just denied to take at home. you can still get the info in a place that has people who know how to council you. Being home alone in the bathroom probably isn't the best place to find out about having HIV. People do stupid shit in situations like that. Like i said, in this particular case i don't really agree, i'm just against Berk's use of freedom to say that the home test should be made available.

But haven't you read what I said? This is a false alternative. Most people who live with HIV do not know that (and as a result, are much more dangerous - not just because they are more likely to engage in risky behavior but because someone who is being treated for HIV have a virus count so low that they are almost unable to infect someone else even when engaging in a risky behavior). A lot of people who would take a test at home would not go to a doctor to get tested because they are afraid of the stigma or medical costs (sure HIV tests are available for free, but usually in places where only "druggies and faggots" go and in places like this you are asked a lot of questions about your sexual life since they are more of social/research clinics - that's why I prefer to get tested in a private clinic) or simply cannot handle this psychologically (I get tested every 6-9 months and I can take you waiting for the results is NOT a nice feeling - I would much rather take the test at home).

Of course releasing the HIV test without education would be a mistake. You need to 1) tell people this is not 100% certain so if you get a positive result, you still should go to see a doctor to recheck this so don't panic 2) and if you are positive this is what you should know and 3) these are people you should contact, at the very least.

Quote from: HVC on July 18, 2012, 01:25:35 AM
But the test isn't being denied to people, just denied to take at home.

On what grounds?

Quote

you can still get the info in a place that has people who know how to council you.

Who is to say I need counseling? Who gets to decide that *I* need counseling?

Quote
Being home alone in the bathroom probably isn't the best place to find out about having HIV.

How about at home in the kitchen? At home with your family? At home alone? At home after careful and rational consideration of what it all means?

Why do you get to decide for EVERYONE how they can and cannot find out information about themselves?

Quote
People do stupid shit in situations like that.

So?

People do stupid shit in lots of different situations, all the damn time.

That doesn't mean it is the job of the state to step in and stop everyone from doing things because SOME of them might do something stupid.

This is what "freedom" means. The freedom to make mistakes, to do stupid things. Freedom means nothing if it is within such a restrictive society that seeks to save us from the consequences of our choices.

Quote
Like i said, in this particular case i don't really agree, i'm just against Berk's use of freedom to say that the home test should be made available.

UNless the state can show a clear and compelling case for why ALL individuals should be denied liberty, it should stay the hell out.

When it comes to personal choices about their health that only effect them, it should definitely stay the hell out.

I think both sides of the argument are missing one fact that it actually took anti-HIV activists a long time to realize, too: when it comes to HIV and sex, people do not behave rationally. You need to take how they behave and build prevention and treatment methodologies around that, and not around some ideal "rational person" model.

Which is why home tests are actually a good thing - because people are not rational and will not go to get tested even if they have a reason to believe they have HIV very often, but would be more likely to take a test at home.

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:43:05 AM
I think both sides of the argument are missing one fact that it actually took anti-HIV activists a long time to realize, too: when it comes to HIV and sex, people do not behave rationally. You need to take how they behave and build prevention and treatment methodologies around that, and not around some ideal "rational person" model.

Which is why home tests are actually a good thing - because people are not rational and will not go to get tested even if they have a reason to believe they have HIV very often, but would be more likely to take a test at home.

It is a classic case of cutting of your nose to spite your face. Or not seeing the forest for the trees. Or something like that.

The largest problem in the spread of HIV is not people freaking out when they find out they have it - it is people not knowing they have it and spreading it.

Here we have technology that allows effective, accurate, and inexpensive testing in the privacy of someones home, and the response?

"Oh, people are too weak/stupid/shallow to handle that information on their own! Force them to go to a doctor to get tested!"

The result will be that fewer people will get tested, of course.

I didn't really want ot make this argument though, since it is one based on practical issues, rather than the fundamental principle, which is that the state has no business denying information to people because they think people cannot handle it. That is the very height of nanny-statism.

This is the EXACT same argument used to deny kids sex education or access to condoms.

QuoteIn another study involving heterosexual couples in which one partner was HIV-positive, the uninfected partner had a 75% lower risk of contracting HIV if they took Truvada.

Now this I don't get.
You know its a hole of poison and death yet you keep sticking your thing in it?

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 01:46:58 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:43:05 AM
I think both sides of the argument are missing one fact that it actually took anti-HIV activists a long time to realize, too: when it comes to HIV and sex, people do not behave rationally. You need to take how they behave and build prevention and treatment methodologies around that, and not around some ideal "rational person" model.

Which is why home tests are actually a good thing - because people are not rational and will not go to get tested even if they have a reason to believe they have HIV very often, but would be more likely to take a test at home.

It is a classic case of cutting of your nose to spite your face. Or not seeing the forest for the trees. Or something like that.

The largest problem in the spread of HIV is not people freaking out when they find out they have it - it is people not knowing they have it and spreading it.

Here we have technology that allows effective, accurate, and inexpensive testing in the privacy of someones home, and the response?

"Oh, people are too weak/stupid/shallow to handle that information on their own! Force them to go to a doctor to get tested!"

The result will be that fewer people will get tested, of course.

I didn't really want ot make this argument though, since it is one based on practical issues, rather than the fundamental principle, which is that the state has no business denying information to people because they think people cannot handle it. That is the very height of nanny-statism.

This is the EXACT same argument used to deny kids sex education or access to condoms.

100% agreement.

Berkut loses because of Marti taint. :console:

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 01:07:44 AM
You might as well argue that kids in school should not be allowed access to condoms because you can't fit all the possible information they may need about sex onto that little package.

Oh wait - people argue exactly that all the time.

You're equating 8th grade Sex Health Education, where they show kids how to put a condom on a banana, to a providing a clinical framework for newly diagnosed HIV+ individuals?  Please tell me you're making that equivalency.

QuoteNo, actually I am completely consistent. As are you, for that matter - you consistently don't give a shit about liberty, except when you are whining about it somewhere other than right here.

I see no threat to "Liberty", "Freedom", "Consumer Choice" or any of your other fruity buzzwords in maintaining a context in dealing with those individuals that provide a public health risk.

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:14:51 AM
you need the whole system of health and sex education.

That's anti-freedomness and anti-libertyism. 

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:23:17 AM
Let's also not forget that in many countries (either due to costs of health service or social stigma associated with HIV status) many people forego going to a doctor to get a HIV test entirely, so again the alternative between going to a doctor to take a HIV test and doing it at home is a false one - very often it is either the home test or nothing at all.

Well, guess what;  your average junkie who doesn't bother getting tested at a free clinic isn't going to bother taking a home test, either.

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:43:05 AM
Which is why home tests are actually a good thing - because people are not rational and will not go to get tested even if they have a reason to believe they have HIV very often, but would be more likely to take a test at home.

See above.  Junkies don't bother to brush their teeth, let alone participate in needle exchange programs.  You really think they're going to bother taking a home test?

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:27:14 AM
Of course releasing the HIV test without education would be a mistake. You need to 1) tell people this is not 100% certain so if you get a positive result, you still should go to see a doctor to recheck this so don't panic 2) and if you are positive this is what you should know and 3) these are people you should contact, at the very least.

That's more anti-freedomness and anti-libertyism.  According to Berkut, that's their decision to make. 

Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 01:14:04 AM
So given this thread in particular...

Do you support the idea that prescriptions are unnecessary, and that people ought to be able to "decide these kinds of risks for themselves" and have the right to be given any kind of drug that is only available by presciprtion?

Why do you hate liberty?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 01:05:25 AM
Pregnancy, unfortunately in some cases, doesn't kill people.

QuoteYes it does.

Not nearly enough.  But that's for another anti-breeder thread, where we can discuss how the number of babies you pop out is going to fuck with my commute in the morning 18 years from now.

QuoteAnd in some cases, HIV does not kill people - hell, in many cases it does not these days.

In most cases, there's education, healthcare and money at play.  Not everybody has the means to afford the Magic Johnson Treatment.  Everybody else without means gets to stare at the 11 year average onset for AIDS and die from the attendant slew of related immune-related infections.

QuoteNone of that is the point though - liberty is not about some calcualtion of Seedy's to decide if some information is just too risky for the peasants to have access to - you either buy into the idea that people have the right to decide those kinds of risks themselves, or you buy into the idea that the state is better able to assess those risks for everyone, and should in fact do so and impose a blanket answer for everyone.

Sorry, but "Liberty" isn't about allowing individuals to wander the wilderness alone with the knowledge of what can be a terminal diagnosis without clinical guidance, either.  Have a fucking heart, man.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 07:31:11 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:43:05 AM
Which is why home tests are actually a good thing - because people are not rational and will not go to get tested even if they have a reason to believe they have HIV very often, but would be more likely to take a test at home.

See above.  Junkies don't bother to brush their teeth, let alone participate in needle exchange programs.  You really think they're going to bother taking a home test?

It's not junkies who do not go to a doctor to get tested. Quite the contrary, actually. The high risk demographics (gays, intravenal drug users) are actually quite aware of the risks and I would say get tested more regularly than members of the general public and the "hidden risk groups" (such as married black or Latino women). This is exactly because the latter fear the stigma of being tested and being associated with the former.

Such people may be inclined, however, to take a home test.

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 07:51:05 AM
It's not junkies who do not go to a doctor to get tested. Quite the contrary, actually.

Maybe European junkies are more tuned in to their personal wellness plans, but it's a little different here. 
I'm sure there's plenty of college-educated cocknibblers like yourself that like to play HIV Russian Roulette with anonymous bunnyfucking, but I think you're overestimating a junkie's concern for themselves.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 07:34:21 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:27:14 AM
Of course releasing the HIV test without education would be a mistake. You need to 1) tell people this is not 100% certain so if you get a positive result, you still should go to see a doctor to recheck this so don't panic 2) and if you are positive this is what you should know and 3) these are people you should contact, at the very least.

That's more anti-freedomness and anti-libertyism.  According to Berkut, that's their decision to make. 

You don't see the difference between education and denying people access to a test?

I rest my case.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 07:56:05 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 07:51:05 AM
It's not junkies who do not go to a doctor to get tested. Quite the contrary, actually.

Maybe European junkies are more tuned in to their personal wellness plans, but it's a little different here. 
I'm sure there's plenty of college-educated cocknibblers like yourself that like to play HIV Russian Roulette with anonymous bunnyfucking, but I think you're overestimating a junkie's concern for themselves.

You are really tedious to discuss stuff with.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 07:45:16 AM
Sorry, but "Liberty" isn't about allowing individuals to wander the wilderness alone with the knowledge of what can be a terminal diagnosis without clinical guidance, either.  Have a fucking heart, man.

If you think clinical guidance is a good thing, then provide it. You can in fact provide lots of education in that very same test package about what to do if your test has a first positive, who they can contact, etc.

You could even provide them with a big, friendly "Don't Panic!" sticker that pops up if they test positive.

We are not talking about that though - we are talking about your brilliant idea to deny people the ability to take a test because they might do so in a manner that does not meet your approval.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 07:59:28 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 07:34:21 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:27:14 AM
Of course releasing the HIV test without education would be a mistake. You need to 1) tell people this is not 100% certain so if you get a positive result, you still should go to see a doctor to recheck this so don't panic 2) and if you are positive this is what you should know and 3) these are people you should contact, at the very least.

That's more anti-freedomness and anti-libertyism.  According to Berkut, that's their decision to make. 

You don't see the difference between education and denying people access to a test?

I rest my case.

Hey, you're the one that's making education and clinical guidance an option.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 01:11:28 AM
you either buy into the idea that people have the right to decide those kinds of risks themselves,

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 07:56:05 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 07:51:05 AM
It's not junkies who do not go to a doctor to get tested. Quite the contrary, actually.

Maybe European junkies are more tuned in to their personal wellness plans, but it's a little different here. 
I'm sure there's plenty of college-educated cocknibblers like yourself that like to play HIV Russian Roulette with anonymous bunnyfucking, but I think you're overestimating a junkie's concern for themselves.

So we should deny everyone the right to take a test because junkies might take it (the same junkies you claim won't take a home test in the first place, of course) and freak out at the results?

So Susy homemaker who finds out hubby was not faithful can't take the test because some junkie somewhere, who won't take the test regardless, may not react well to the knowledge he has HIV, when he doesn't take the test to begin with?

That makes a lot of sense.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 08:04:28 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 07:59:28 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 07:34:21 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:27:14 AM
Of course releasing the HIV test without education would be a mistake. You need to 1) tell people this is not 100% certain so if you get a positive result, you still should go to see a doctor to recheck this so don't panic 2) and if you are positive this is what you should know and 3) these are people you should contact, at the very least.

That's more anti-freedomness and anti-libertyism.  According to Berkut, that's their decision to make. 

You don't see the difference between education and denying people access to a test?

I rest my case.

Hey, you're the one that's making education and clinical guidance an option.

Yes, I don't think guidance should be mandatory. I do in fact think it should be optional at the discretion of the individual.

I am sure you think some more state mandated education and re-education of the masses is the answer.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m1yqhuL3IA1qdb9v0.jpg&hash=74a38e3403e0b0ad106ffeb564a3f0826efadda2)

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:08:12 AM
It could be that garbon and I are less concerned about this, since the GLBT community has been literally awash with HIV prevention and maintenance education for years now so we don't think there are people who don't know these things - but perhaps it's time to start such campaign for heteros (I don't see why the aforementioned drugs/tests can't have leaflets explaining a lot of this stuff). Especially as in pure numerical values, new HIV infections are on the raise among the straight populace more than in the gay one.

Well I didn't say that it should be blocked but if we had to talk about gays, I think we'd be better able to use Truvada appropriately than learning one has HIV from a take home test.

Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 01:23:17 AM
That's a completely different concern and while valid is preventable to a large extent by including the information in the test what to do/who to contact if you turn out to be HIV positive.

I don't believe that. Part of the fear/dread of HIV, here in the West where you could take such a test, is more irrational than the actuality of the disease with treatment (for those who can afford it)...so I don't think a pamphlet could make a positive test seem like less of a psychic blow.

Btw, we already have take home HIV tests, you just don't get very quick results.

This thread delivers!  :lol:

I'd toss in my two cents' worth, but Berkut already has it so well-covered I'd be redundant.

CDM's position is like that of a man who thinks that the rules to ASL shouldn't be included in the box, because someone seeing them in the privy of his own home might freak out and punch their counters; the rules should only be provided, and read, at Origins with the authors in attendance to give guidance and hope.

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 10:29:19 AM
This thread delivers!  :lol:

I'd toss in my two cents' worth, but Berkut already has it so well-covered I'd be redundant.

CDM's position is like that of a man who thinks that the rules to ASL shouldn't be included in the box, because someone seeing them in the privy of his own home might freak out and punch their counters; the rules should only be provided, and read, at Origins with the authors in attendance to give guidance and hope.

Yeah, because if someone punched their counters that would definitely be life threatening.

I don't understand the issue with this being "life threatening". Lots of things are life threatening - that doesn't mean we should not let people find out if their life is threatened because we are afraid some set of people may not react to the knowledge well.

After all, having HIV is MORE life threatening to themselves and others if they are not aware they have it. So why would you want to restrict peoples ability to find out in a simple and easy manner? That should be the over-riding concern if we really care about peoples lives - more people die because there is a population of people who are HIV positive and do not know it than this speculated danger of how people might react without nannystate there to counsel them...surely?

If someone invented a cheap and effective home test for breast cancer, would we argue that it should not be made available because some women may not react well to the news? Other forms of cancer?

How many people have to *potentially* react poorly to justify denying information to everyone? Is there a study that shows how many people will react in such a negative manner to justify denying information to millions of people about their own health? Has that study been done? Where are the number to justify such draconian restrictions? Or is this really just someone imagination?

And what about the fact that restricting this information harms the vast majority of people who would use the test and find out they are NOT HIV positive, which I suspect most people taking the test are not? Is their peace of mind and privacy not valuable as well?

But again, these are all practical issues - the fundamental one is what I find most odious. That the state should take it upon themselves to deny people the right to find out information about their own health on the justification that the state knows better than they how and when they should be allowed access to that information is truly a fundamental abridgement of the very basis of a liberal society.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 11:50:51 AM
I don't understand the issue with this being "life threatening". Lots of things are life threatening - that doesn't mean we should not let people find out if their life is threatened because we are afraid some set of people may not react to the knowledge well.

After all, having HIV is MORE life threatening to themselves and others if they are not aware they have it. So why would you want to restrict peoples ability to find out in a simple and easy manner? That should be the over-riding concern if we really care about peoples lives - more people die because there is a population of people who are HIV positive and do not know it than this speculated danger of how people might react without nannystate there to counsel them...surely?

If someone invented a cheap and effective home test for breast cancer, would we argue that it should not be made available because some women may not react well to the news? Other forms of cancer?

How many people have to *potentially* react poorly to justify denying information to everyone? Is there a study that shows how many people will react in such a negative manner to justify denying information to millions of people about their own health? Has that study been done? Where are the number to justify such draconian restrictions? Or is this really just someone imagination?

And what about the fact that restricting this information harms the vast majority of people who would use the test and find out they are NOT HIV positive, which I suspect most people taking the test are not? Is their peace of mind and privacy not valuable as well?

But again, these are all practical issues - the fundamental one is what I find most odious. That the state should take it upon themselves to deny people the right to find out information about their own health on the justification that the state knows better than they how and when they should be allowed access to that information is truly a fundamental abridgement of the very basis of a liberal society.

My point was mainly directed to the issue Garbon and I were discussing since Grumbler referred to the thread in general.  On that point we dont let people take anti-biotics whenever they feel like it because mis-use of antiboitics endangers us all.  Misuse of this drug will according to the concerns expressed in the report in the OP will have similiar consequences.

On the issue of restricting learning about lab results, there is a reason doctors wish to see their patients to discuss certain lab results and not simply tell them over the phone.  You seem to assume that everyone is as well educated and as well adjusted as you (or some mythical natural man which upon which classical liberalism is based) but it aint so.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 11:50:51 AM
I don't understand the issue with this being "life threatening". Lots of things are life threatening ...

CC was responding to my silly post with a silly response.  He'd be a moron to have meant his response to be taken seriously.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2012, 11:59:54 AM
My point was mainly directed to the issue Garbon and I were discussing since Grumbler referred to the thread in general.  On that point we dont let people take anti-biotics whenever they feel like it because mis-use of antiboitics endangers us all.  Misuse of this drug will according to the concerns expressed in the report in the OP will have similiar consequences.

Well sure, however people won't be able to take this whenever they want. It isn't an OTC and it isn't cheap.

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 12:01:21 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 11:50:51 AM
I don't understand the issue with this being "life threatening". Lots of things are life threatening ...

CC was responding to my silly post with a silly response.  He'd be a moron to have meant his response to be taken seriously.

More to the point, anyone would be a moron to take you seriously.

Quote

My point was mainly directed to the issue Garbon and I were discussing since Grumbler referred to the thread in general.  On that point we dont let people take anti-biotics whenever they feel like it because mis-use of antiboitics endangers us all.  Misuse of this drug will according to the concerns expressed in the report in the OP will have similiar consequences.

We let people take anti-biotics with a prescription from a doctor, who presumably is trained to make sure it is not proscribed in a manner that increases that risk. The claim here is that we should not allow people to take the drug even with a prescription. So that isn't really comparable.

Quote

On the issue of restricting learning about lab results, there is a reason doctors wish to see their patients to discuss certain lab results and not simply tell them over the phone.

That is a choice made by a doctor, who is a private citizen, and if my doctor insists on not telling me things over the phone, it is my choice to find another doctor.

Presumably doctors are in fact trained in what they should and should not tell people over the phone, and can make informed judgement about how to do so (and when not to). Again, this is not analogous - the demand here would be that the state make it illegal for doctors to tell people over the phone, because SOME people might not react well, therefore EVERYONE should be dragged into their doctors office no matter what.

Quote
  You seem to assume that everyone is as well educated and as well adjusted as you (or some mythical natural man which upon which classical liberalism is based) but it aint so.

No, I assume that people have the right to make choices for themselves. You assume that EVERYONE is too poorly educated and well adjusted, since your demand is that the law would apply to everyone.

See, this is the fundamental issue here - the state cannot make laws that only apply to the poorly educated and poorly adjusted, so if they deny the people who might not react well to information, they have to also deny all the people who WILL react will. This goes to the core of why societies that pay more than lip service to "liberty" and "freedom" restrict the states ability to impose these kinds of onerous restrictions. It demands that everyone be treated as if they were the most uneducated, most poorly adjusted.

There is nothing at all "mythical" about the idea that human being have the right to decide for themselves what they can and cannot handle. Most people are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what information they would like to know about their own health, and how they would like to find it out. If in fact they feel they may need support and counseling when finding the answer, they can go to a clinic or their doctor for the test. If they feel they can handle the information fine with the support of their family, or maybe the support of nobody at all, they can get the home test.

But the important idea here is that we as a society should recognize that humans as a whole are better able to make those decisions for themselves than the state making that decision for everyone.

There is a word for this concept: it is "liberty".

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 10:29:19 AM
This thread delivers!  :lol:

I'd toss in my two cents' worth, but Berkut already has it so well-covered I'd be redundant.

CDM's position is like that of a man who thinks that the rules to ASL shouldn't be included in the box, because someone seeing them in the privy of his own home might freak out and punch their counters; the rules should only be provided, and read, at Origins with the authors in attendance to give guidance and hope.

Hey, man...prematurely punching counters is not a laughing matter.  :mad:

And of course the ASL rulebook needs to be sold separately.  It is a living document.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:13:29 PM
We let people take anti-biotics with a prescription from a doctor, who presumably is trained to make sure it is not proscribed in a manner that increases that risk. The claim here is that we should not allow people to take the drug even with a prescription. So that isn't really comparable.

It is, given the fact that antibiotics are over prescribed and that has led to some worry by health professionals that eventually antiboitics will no longer be useful which in turn has led to a significant push to decrease the usage of antibiotics.

QuoteThat is a choice made by a doctor, who is a private citizen, and if my doctor insists on not telling me things over the phone, it is my choice to find another doctor.

Again the classical liberal view oversimplies things.  Doctors are not merely private actors akin to some mythical natural man.  They act within a complex web of regulatory, professional and legal obligations and restrictions.

QuotePresumably doctors are in fact trained in what they should and should not tell people over the phone, and can make informed judgement about how to do so (and when not to). Again, this is not analogous - the demand here would be that the state make it illegal for doctors to tell people over the phone, because SOME people might not react well, therefore EVERYONE should be dragged into their doctors office no matter what.

Now you are getting it.  There is a need to impart certain information in the presence of a trained professional.  But then you drop the ball by asserting that just because some people might not be damaged without such precautions we should risk everyone being damaged.

QuoteThere is nothing at all "mythical" about the idea that human being have the right to decide for themselves what they can and cannot handle.

Your right.  That particular idea is not a myth. But that idea derives from the myth of the natural man upon which your world view seems to be based.  Also, making public policy decisions based on such a myth can lead to disasterous results.  If followed in all cases we would simply allow everyone to decide for themselves whether they should take antibiotics or not.  What a disaster that would be. 

I wonder if there is a segment of people who would be more likely test at home because they want to avoid disapprobation from a physician/clinician.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2012, 12:39:46 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:13:29 PM
We let people take anti-biotics with a prescription from a doctor, who presumably is trained to make sure it is not proscribed in a manner that increases that risk. The claim here is that we should not allow people to take the drug even with a prescription. So that isn't really comparable.

It is, given the fact that antibiotics are over prescribed and that has led to some worry by health professionals that eventually antiboitics will no longer be useful which in turn has led to a significant push to decrease the usage of antibiotics.

And all this is happening without the need to have the state step in and just outlaw the use of anti-biotics? I think you are making my argument for me.

Quote

QuoteThat is a choice made by a doctor, who is a private citizen, and if my doctor insists on not telling me things over the phone, it is my choice to find another doctor.

Again the classical liberal view oversimplies things.  Doctors are not merely private actors akin to some mythical natural man.  They act within a complex web of regulatory, professional and legal obligations and restrictions.

Indeed they do - but you are demanding that in this case, doctors should simply be restricted from giving information over the phone altogether, and MUST in all cases tell their patients that they ahve to come in, because some subset of patients may react poorly to being told over the phone.

Again, there is no law that says that doctors cannot give results over the phone - we rely on their training and discretion to understand when and how to divulge results.

Quote

QuotePresumably doctors are in fact trained in what they should and should not tell people over the phone, and can make informed judgement about how to do so (and when not to). Again, this is not analogous - the demand here would be that the state make it illegal for doctors to tell people over the phone, because SOME people might not react well, therefore EVERYONE should be dragged into their doctors office no matter what.

Now you are getting it.  There is a need to impart certain information in the presence of a trained professional.  But then you drop the ball by asserting that just because some people might not be damaged without such precautions we should risk everyone being damaged.

You drop the ball because you assert that because some people might be damaged, everyone must have their freedom curtailed. And without even bothering to show that there will really be any significant damage that would outweight the damage the restriction will cause!

Again - this is the fundamental disconnect that shows that most people don't really give a shit about actual liberty. The onus is on the person demanding that the state restrict EVERYONES liberty to show that it is necessary. Not on me to show that the reverse.

Quote

QuoteThere is nothing at all "mythical" about the idea that human being have the right to decide for themselves what they can and cannot handle.

Your right.  That particular idea is not a myth. But that idea derives from the myth of the natural man upon which your world view seems to be based.  Also, making public policy decisions based on such a myth can lead to disasterous results.  If followed in all cases we would simply allow everyone to decide for themselves whether they should take antibiotics or not.  What a disaster that would be. 

Total strawman - we are not talking about who can and cannot take prescription drugs. There is no argument there.

We are talking about the claim that information is so dangerous to people that the state has a compelling interest to not let them know if they have HIV because some people think they cannot handle the information, and it should be held back from them.

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 12:46:13 PM
I wonder if there is a segment of people who would be more likely test at home because they want to avoid disapprobation from a physician/clinician.

I am sure there would be some.  To avoid that problem there are several clinics here in Vancouver set up precisely for that purpose.

There was a story on the news this morning about one that is attached to a local bathhouse.  Apparently they get clients who would not feel comfortable, for a whole variety of reasons, in a more formal health care setting.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:48:24 PM
Total strawman - we are not talking about who can and cannot take prescription drugs. There is no argument there.

So for some things you are willing to take away freedom - Commie!

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2012, 12:52:31 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:48:24 PM
Total strawman - we are not talking about who can and cannot take prescription drugs. There is no argument there.

So for some things you are willing to take away freedom - Commie!

Of course - how is that even disputed?

I find it interesting that your argument is that as long as we take away any freedom, no matter how well justified, it is ok to take away any other freedom without any need to justify doing so at all. In fact, because freedom is not absolute (which is non-sensical anyway), then any argument that we should not restrict freedom is by definition dismissed as irrelevant.

Like I have said, most people pay only lip service to the concept of liberty.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2012, 12:07:10 PM
More to the point, anyone would be a moron to take you seriously.

:lmfao:  Seriously?

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 02:08:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2012, 12:52:31 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:48:24 PM
Total strawman - we are not talking about who can and cannot take prescription drugs. There is no argument there.

So for some things you are willing to take away freedom - Commie!

Of course - how is that even disputed?

I find it interesting that your argument is that as long as we take away any freedom, no matter how well justified, it is ok to take away any other freedom without any need to justify doing so at all. In fact, because freedom is not absolute (which is non-sensical anyway), then any argument that we should not restrict freedom is by definition dismissed as irrelevant.

Like I have said, most people pay only lip service to the concept of liberty.

I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread.  Kinda reminds me of the old thread about the British panicking over the Italian invasion of Egypt in 1940.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ctbites.com%2Fstorage%2FI_Bet_Popcorn_Fairfield_County_CT_Popcorn.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1302711338221&hash=f395d6fffb400f052ba1ebfe47ad42a98f9b1af0)

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 03:06:39 PM
I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread.

Is he?  It seems to me that Berkut's arguments tend to fall back on liberty and freedom, which is a poor base for public policy.

Quote from: Neil on July 18, 2012, 04:09:18 PM

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 03:06:39 PM
I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread.

Is he?  It seems to me that Berkut's arguments tend to fall back on liberty and freedom, which is a poor base for public policy.

CC is losing because Grumbler doesn't like CC therefore, nothing CC says is persuasive.  Berkut's just going on about how he knows what liberty really means, but most people don't.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:13:29 PM
But the important idea here is that we as a society should recognize that humans as a whole are better able to make those decisions for themselves than the state making that decision for everyone.

There is a word for this concept: it is "liberty".

But Berkut - you just conceded that there are situations where government should restrict that liberty - people need a prescription for various medicines.

So if it can be justified, it is possible that perhaps home HIV tests should not be allowed.  I'm not certain it is justified - I would think the benefit of more people getting tested outweights the negative actions some may take when finding a positive result.  But it's a discussion worth having.

Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 04:46:24 PM
But it's a discussion worth having.

Is it though? As I pointed out somewhere in here - at-home kits already existed for HIV. However, you had to mail in those kits to get your results back (usually by punching in your code into a phone and then potentially having a counselor delivering the news).  The only difference here is that you can get your results back super quick (with of course, no counselor standing by - though OraSure does similarly have a help line to call post-test).

I think the biggest concern though is what happens to the below individuals (quote found in an NYT article about OraQuick):

QuoteSo, while only about one person in 5,000 would get a false positive test, about one person in 12 could get a false negative.

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 05:02:37 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 04:46:24 PM
But it's a discussion worth having.

Is it though? As I pointed out somewhere in here - at-home kits already existed for HIV. However, you had to mail in those kits to get your results back (usually by punching in your code into a phone and then potentially having a counselor delivering the news).  The only difference here is that you can get your results back super quick (with of course, no counselor standing by - though OraSure does similarly have a help line to call post-test).

I think the biggest concern though is what happens to the below individuals (quote found in an NYT article about OraQuick):

QuoteSo, while only about one person in 5,000 would get a false positive test, about one person in 12 could get a false negative.

Fair enough points.  But I wonder what the "false negative" rate is for tests done in a doctor's office.

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 03:06:39 PM
I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread. 

You are losing your grip on reality.

Losing?

Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 05:08:43 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 05:02:37 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 04:46:24 PM
But it's a discussion worth having.

Is it though? As I pointed out somewhere in here - at-home kits already existed for HIV. However, you had to mail in those kits to get your results back (usually by punching in your code into a phone and then potentially having a counselor delivering the news).  The only difference here is that you can get your results back super quick (with of course, no counselor standing by - though OraSure does similarly have a help line to call post-test).

I think the biggest concern though is what happens to the below individuals (quote found in an NYT article about OraQuick):

QuoteSo, while only about one person in 5,000 would get a false positive test, about one person in 12 could get a false negative.

Fair enough points.  But I wonder what the "false negative" rate is for tests done in a doctor's office.

Wiki says 3 in 1,000 for standard lab test. So that looks alarming as not an insignificant difference.

Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 04:46:24 PM
But Berkut - you just conceded that there are situations where government should restrict that liberty - people need a prescription for various medicines.

So if it can be justified, it is possible that perhaps home HIV tests should not be allowed.  I'm not certain it is justified - I would think the benefit of more people getting tested outweights the negative actions some may take when finding a positive result.  But it's a discussion worth having.

I am not sure what the argument is for not allowing home testing.  It surely isn't the argument used to justify prescription medication.

The justification for making medications require a prescription is that the medication might be harmful to the patient if used incorrectly (and, in some cases, even when used correctly), and therefor that a doctor needs to evaluate the needs and condition of his/her patient before authorizing the risk.  Since the doctor controls the patient's access to the prescription, he or she can ensure that the patient is taking the medicine in the proper dosages and after proper counseling.

The justification for not allowing home testing for HIV appears to be that the justifiers feel that the testee isn't able to understand the results of the test unless those results are delivered in person by someone else.  There is no harm here to the recipient of the test, except maybe for some emotional trauma if it is positive, so I don't see any connection whatsoever.

The only purpose of government intervention in peoples' decision-making, it seems to me, should be to preserve some greater good.  If the government is intervening in peoples' decision-making just because someone feels that it is a good idea, even if it serves no greater good, then I don't find it justified, and I oppose it.

The greater good of having prescription medicine seems to me to be clear.  The greater good in banning home testing seems to me to remain completely unarticulated.  So far the argument is bogus analogies and straw men, as far as I can tell.

I could be convinced though.

I thought I would add this as I am out of popcorn.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2012, 05:37:10 PM

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 03:06:39 PM
I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread. 

You are losing your grip on reality.

You seem to be taking me seriously.  By your standards, doesn't that make you a moron?  :lol:

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 06:22:36 PM
The greater good in banning home testing seems to me to remain completely unarticulated.  So far the argument is bogus analogies and straw men, as far as I can tell.

I could be convinced though.

I thought I would add this as I am out of popcorn.

Only bit I added above is that it does look like home testing has a higher chance of telling individuals they don't have the disease when they do.

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 05:39:15 PM
Wiki says 3 in 1,000 for standard lab test. So that looks alarming as not an insignificant difference.

You could certainly make an argument against a home test that measures antibody production, rather than the actual presence of the virus, because 8% of the people who have the virus haven't developed the antibodies for it yet.

The argument then becomes one of weighing the benefits of increased testing against the drawback the people will rely on this test, rather than a lab test, to deem themselves "clean."  I don't know enough facts to weigh in on that argument.

But this is an argument about the type of home test that should be allowed, not whether the government should roll back all home testing because people can't be trusted to know the truth about their own health.

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 06:35:11 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 05:39:15 PM
Wiki says 3 in 1,000 for standard lab test. So that looks alarming as not an insignificant difference.

You could certainly make an argument against a home test that measures antibody production, rather than the actual presence of the virus, because 8% of the people who have the virus haven't developed the antibodies for it yet.

The argument then becomes one of weighing the benefits of increased testing against the drawback the people will rely on this test, rather than a lab test, to deem themselves "clean."  I don't know enough facts to weigh in on that argument.

But this is an argument about the type of home test that should be allowed, not whether the government should roll back all home testing because people can't be trusted to know the truth about their own health.

Agreed.

Though I think Seedster only complained about home HIV testing.

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 06:29:59 PM
Only bit I added above is that it does look like home testing has a higher chance of telling individuals they don't have the disease when they do.

This type of home test, yes.  The blood sample home test doesn't appear to have that problem.  However, this test is a lot easier and faster (as well as less painful), so it may be that it will test a lot more people and the benefits of the 92% accuracy on true positives outweigh the drawbacks of the 8% false negative.  As I say above, i don't have the kind of info needed to make that determination.  Some people who do have such knowledge are strongly in favor of this testing, though.

Anthony Fauci and Robert Gallo weigh in as part of this story: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/health/oraquick-at-home-hiv-test-wins-fda-approval.html?_r=1

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Though I think Seedster only complained about home HIV testing.

There is home HIV testing that takes blood and then has it sent off to a lab.  That would have the same drawbacks as any other kind of home testing.

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 06:40:07 PM
Anthony Fauci and Robert Gallo weigh in as part of this story: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/health/oraquick-at-home-hiv-test-wins-fda-approval.html?_r=1

That's actually where I got the stat from.

Personally, I'll doubt I'd turn to this test as 8% error isn't really worth basing my health on.

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 06:42:16 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Though I think Seedster only complained about home HIV testing.

There is home HIV testing that takes blood and then has it sent off to a lab.  That would have the same drawbacks as any other kind of home testing.

I already mentioned that - however, given Seedster's objection, I don't think he was aware of that.

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 06:42:27 PM
Personally, I'll doubt I'd turn to this test as 8% error isn't really worth basing my health on.

This, of course, could be completely irrational - but knowing there is easy access to better testing methods, I can't see why I wouldn't avail myself of those.

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Though I think Seedster only complained about home HIV testing.

My concerns were the lack of a context of a clinical support network surrounding such a home test, as I already wrote earlier--

Quotethe attendant clinical alternatives, future treatment plans, the risk assessment and education on how to reduce the public safety risk, the attendant health issues that impact the individual such as sex partners, pregnancy, and the variety of future medical implications of HIV, as well as the overall dealing with the behavioral and psychosocial impact of a having a socially stigmatizing health condition

--as opposed to, say, finding out your cholesterol level.

But hey, Languish wants to deal with its HIV on its own with a brochure.  Fuck it, have fun with your AIDS, fellas.  ITS ALL ABOUT MAH FREEDOM

Actually they'd be more likely to develop AIDS if they didn't get tested.

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 07:59:56 PM
Actually they'd be more likely to develop AIDS if they didn't get tested.

No, they'd develop AIDS without the appropriate treatment plan and clinical guidance--which is apparently optional.

Well yes people should be free to live or die as they choose.

With cancer, sure.  With a communicable condition with distinct public health risks, not so much.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 08:05:49 PM
With cancer, sure.  With a communicable condition with distinct public health risks, not so much.

I don't really how it changes much if you have someone come into a clinic, get tested, get told the risks and then ignores it.

Besides, you've already plenty who do no testing at all. Don't see how restricting at home testing combats any of those real issues. And by real, I mean verifiable.

Yes, the "so why bother" argument.  Convincing.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 08:05:49 PM
With cancer, sure.  With a communicable condition with distinct public health risks, not so much.

You can't reason with a homo when it comes to AIDS.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 08:02:51 PM
No, they'd develop AIDS without the appropriate treatment plan and clinical guidance--which is apparently optional.

Clinical guidance and treatment plans are completely optional right now - experts think some 20% of the people with HIV don't even know it.

The real choice here isn't between lab testing and home testing, its between no testing and home testing.  As Garbo noted, the well-informed and motivated will opt for the best testing they can get.  Home saliva testing is infinitely faster and less hassle, and some people who couldn't be bothered to make appointments and spend several hours at their doctors might be motivated enough to go through a procedure no more complex than taking their own temperature.

Once all the false dilemmas are stripped out, this seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut case of a win.  As noted above, the relevant experts in the field seem to agree.  So, fight the good emotional fight for the nanny state if you'd like, but I think you'll lose this one just on logic.

I mean, CC agrees with you.  Doesn't that give you pause at all?  :lol:

Quote from: Neil on July 18, 2012, 08:58:02 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 08:05:49 PM
With cancer, sure.  With a communicable condition with distinct public health risks, not so much.

You can't reason with a homo when it comes to AIDS.

grumbler and Berkut aren't homo.  If they were, that would be funny.  But they're not.

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 08:58:17 PM
So, fight the good emotional fight for the nanny state if you'd like, but I think you'll lose this one just on logic.

Dude, when have I even needed to rely upon logic?  I mean, hello.

QuoteI mean, CC agrees with you.  Doesn't that give you pause at all?  :lol:

All I know is, you and most of Languish would make shitty ass healthcare professionals.  CPR? GET UP BEFORE YOU DIE

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 08:59:13 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 18, 2012, 08:58:02 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 08:05:49 PM
With cancer, sure.  With a communicable condition with distinct public health risks, not so much.

You can't reason with a homo when it comes to AIDS.

grumbler and Berkut aren't homo.  If they were, that would be funny.  But they're not.

They're just hardcore individualists who don't like the idea of compromising libertarian principles in the name of good governance.  Which is almost as bad as being gay.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 08:41:49 PM
Yes, the "so why bother" argument.  Convincing.

Well yes, why bother restricting a route through which individuals can find out they are infected? After all, someone purchasing a 60-dollar kit is actually pretty involved with their health. Why would you assume they'd just give up there? :huh:

Oh and for note, that was the speculated price for this learn your status in 20-40 minutes kit.

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 09:22:17 PM
Well yes, why bother restricting a route through which individuals can find out they are infected? After all, someone purchasing a 60-dollar kit is actually pretty involved with their health. Why would you assume they'd just give up there? :huh:

I don't give a shit;  I'm emigrating to Canada, where they actually care about people.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 09:26:14 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 09:22:17 PM
Well yes, why bother restricting a route through which individuals can find out they are infected? After all, someone purchasing a 60-dollar kit is actually pretty involved with their health. Why would you assume they'd just give up there? :huh:

I don't give a shit;  I'm emigrating to Canada, where they actually care about people.

:huh:

So you want to impose nanny state regulations on the US for no apparent reason?

As I already pointed out (and grumbler did as well), at home HIV tests already exist. What is so threatening about a test that gives quick answers (as opposed to waiting with white knuckles to get your results back a week later) that we should be opposed?

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 09:44:59 PM
So you want to impose nanny state regulations on the US for no apparent reason?

People say I'm fucking tedious;  I don't get this constant and consistent equivalency of ensuring a healthcare-based support structure around dealing with a condition like HIV as some sort of nanny statism.

Fuck it, everyone for themselves.  Fuck the poor that won't be able to afford the test, fuck the illiterate that won't be able to read the instructions, and fuck the emotionally hanicapped that won't be able to follow up with doing the right thing.

Never figured I'd be the one defending case management for HIV.  Fuck it.  Death to all fags and junkie niggers then.  PAUL 2016

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 09:51:42 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 09:44:59 PM
So you want to impose nanny state regulations on the US for no apparent reason?

People say I'm fucking tedious;  I don't get this constant and consistent equivalency of ensuring a healthcare-based support structure around dealing with a condition like HIV as some sort of nanny statism.

Fuck it, everyone for themselves.  Fuck the poor that won't be able to afford the test, fuck the illiterate that won't be able to read the instructions, and fuck the emotionally hanicapped that won't be able to follow up with doing the right thing.

Never figured I'd be the one defending case management for HIV.  Fuck it.  Death to all fags and junkie niggers then.  PAUL 2016

What are you talking about?  Where is the evidence that a) individuals who currently use at home HIV tests are doing themselves a disservice? b) That individuals who shell out 60 bucks for a quick at home test (that doesn't have the inconvenience of needing to draw blood, be mailed in, or having the testee wait on pins and needles waiting for the result) will be doing themselves even more of a disservice.

I think that if you are going to claim there is a problem with letting people have an easy route to find out about their health - it should be incumbent on you to show the risk.  Instead, you just keep wrapping yourself up in perverted Demo-slogans about how evil everyone is here in America. WTF, dude, does Mittens have you that scared?

And where is the proof that an individual willing to shell out $60+ bucks on a kit now (or in the past) will then proceed to take no further steps (i.e. counseling and/or drug therapy)???

Sorry, too busy basking in the sunshine of libertyness and freedomhood at the moment to respond.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 10:08:06 PM
Sorry, too busy basking in the sunshine of libertyness and freedomhood at the moment to respond.

Oh that's fine. Please dodge and weave when you've been called out on your bullshit.

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 10:01:40 PM
I think that if you are going to claim there is a problem with letting people have an easy route to find out about their health - it should be incumbent on you to show the risk.

I have.  You guys didn't like it.  And there we are.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 09:26:14 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 09:22:17 PM
Well yes, why bother restricting a route through which individuals can find out they are infected? After all, someone purchasing a 60-dollar kit is actually pretty involved with their health. Why would you assume they'd just give up there? :huh:

I don't give a shit;  I'm emigrating to Canada, where they actually care about people.

It might not be a good idea to abandon the fight for justice in your homeland.

Quote from: Neil on July 18, 2012, 10:21:44 PM
It might not be a good idea to abandon the fight for justice in your homeland.

I've got Ed Schultz.  He's my daddy bear.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 10:11:23 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 10:01:40 PM
I think that if you are going to claim there is a problem with letting people have an easy route to find out about their health - it should be incumbent on you to show the risk.

I have.  You guys didn't like it.  And there we are.

You said that people are going to also need counseling/treatment plans/support. Why are those things not there because the test result didn't come from a doctor?  Where is the data on people whose lives have been ruined / ruined other lives because they learned from a not inexpensive in-home test already?

Or do you think that healthcare policy should just be decided on a whim and not on actual facts? :huh:

I mean maybe it is just because I'm gay but I can't really think of any out (read: not ashamed) gay guy whose first instinct would be to destroy lives and his own. After all, most of us know people who have HIV and some generic clinician who reads us our results isn't likely to be a big component of our support system.

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 10:26:26 PM
I mean maybe it is just because I'm gay but I can't really think of any out (read: not ashamed) gay guy whose first instinct would be to destroy lives and his own. After all, most of us know people who have HIV and some generic clinician who reads us our results isn't likely to be a big component of our support system.

You think I've been talking about only the gay community this whole time?  A community that has, on all accounts and for the most part on its own for almost 30 years, cultivated within its own community a substantial support, education and awareness system to deal with HIV?  You think I mentioned the poor, the illiterate and the emotionally handicapped as if they were some sort of subset of the gay community?

You people are so self-centered sometimes.

All I have been attempting to show in this useless exercise with you Libertard wingnuts is that, unlike so many other health conditions that could be satisfied with home testing, HIV in particular possesses characteristics that makes it a distinct exception that an individual would best be served by not learning about it on its own, and that the current approach of a clinically-based case management approach of dealing with results is better than letting someone deal with it alone. 

But hey, the blanket application of libertytude and freedomism that equates blood sugar level = cholesterol = HIV wins the day.


Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm cruising Paul's website on how I can learn more about the evils of recycling.

The question is not what is better. The question is whether your opinion about what is better is a good foundation for enacting laws and regulations that restrict peoples right to not agree with you about what is better for them.

If you think it is better to get these results in the context of a clinic, then by all means go get yourself tested at a clinic.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 10:51:32 PMYou think I mentioned the poor, the illiterate and the emotionally handicapped as if they were some sort of subset of the gay community?

Who are these poor individuals buying at home tests? Is it reasonable to assume that a poor person with limited knowledge of the existence of HIV will be spending 60+ bucks to buy an at home kit? Do you even think through these thoughts that bumble about in your head?

But you know what - let's say they do. Let's say they save up some money and get an at home kit. Who are you to say that they should only be able to get tested through the impersonal and sometimes terrifying health system. Do these poor individuals have the time to sit around waiting at a clinic?


So what Berk said. Somehow I don't think the foundation of public policy should be what Uncle Seedy feels is best for the unwashed masses.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 07:34:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Though I think Seedster only complained about home HIV testing.

My concerns were the lack of a context of a clinical support network surrounding such a home test, as I already wrote earlier--

Quotethe attendant clinical alternatives, future treatment plans, the risk assessment and education on how to reduce the public safety risk, the attendant health issues that impact the individual such as sex partners, pregnancy, and the variety of future medical implications of HIV, as well as the overall dealing with the behavioral and psychosocial impact of a having a socially stigmatizing health condition

--as opposed to, say, finding out your cholesterol level.

But hey, Languish wants to deal with its HIV on its own with a brochure.  Fuck it, have fun with your AIDS, fellas.  ITS ALL ABOUT MAH FREEDOM

Why would you want to find out you have HIV in a place where people can potentially stop you?

Quote from: Ideologue on July 19, 2012, 12:33:17 AM
Why would you want to find out you have HIV in a place where people can potentially stop you?

Stop you from...?

You know, in reading this thread, I've realized just how out-of-date my knowledge of AIDS is. I think my education stopped somewhere in the mid-90s.

Can someone please point me toward a good source of information that is neither all scare tactics (for teens) nor all goodness and light (for those in the danger zone)? :)

I'm told that eating an albino is the holistic approach.   As for real medicine Fate would know.  But Grumbler drove him off.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 19, 2012, 09:21:07 PM
I'm told that eating an albino is the holistic approach.   As for real medicine Fate would know.  But Grumbler drove him off.

:mellow:

Well there is always raping a virgin, but that's probably just superstition.  I'd stick with the albino.

So anybody that isn't being a dick just for the sake of being a dick got a URL for me?

Quote from: merithyn on July 19, 2012, 09:37:39 PM
So anybody that isn't being a dick just for the sake of being a dick got a URL for me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS

Check out the "management" and "prognosis" sections.  Main points:

QuoteHIV/AIDS has become a chronic rather than an acutely fatal disease in many areas of the world.[130] Prognosis varies between people and both the CD4 count and viral load are useful for predicted outcomes.[13] Without treatment, average survival time after infection with HIV is estimated to be 9 to 11 years, depending on the HIV subtype.[131] After the diagnosis of AIDS, if treatment is not available, survival ranges between 6 and 19 months.[132][133] HAART and appropriate prevention of opportunistic infections reduces the death rate by 80%, and raises the life expectancy for a newly diagnosed young adult to 20–50 years.[130][134][135] This is between two thirds[134] and nearly that of the general population.[14][136] If treatment is started late in the infection prognosis is not as good,[14] for example if treatment is begun following the diagnosis of AIDS life expectancy is ~10–40 years.[14][130] Half of infants born with HIV die before two years of age without treatment.[116]

Truly a godforsaken way to die, though, not that there are a lot of good ones.

Oh, you meant the Fate part.  Yeah Grumbles had in for him for years.  Something about a bridge and some goats.

Quote from: ulmont on July 19, 2012, 09:53:58 PM
Truly a godforsaken way to die, though, not that there are a lot of good ones.

But see, that's OK, because you have the right to die that way.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 19, 2012, 10:19:07 PM

Quote from: ulmont on July 19, 2012, 09:53:58 PM
Truly a godforsaken way to die, though, not that there are a lot of good ones.

But see, that's OK, because you have the right to die that way.

Oh, massa sir, please let me know how to get to the promised land. Please Unca Seedy?

Quote from: ulmont on July 19, 2012, 09:53:58 PM


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS

Check out the "management" and "prognosis" sections.  Main points:

Truly a godforsaken way to die, though, not that there are a lot of good ones.

Thanks. :)

It seems that a lot of that information is outdated now, but was a good overview.

Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2012, 10:28:19 PM
Oh, massa sir, please let me know how to get to the promised land. Please Unca Seedy?

Only if you sing for me, boy. When you was slaves, you sang like birds.  Go on, how 'bout a good ol' nigger work song?

Quote from: merithyn on July 19, 2012, 09:08:59 PM
You know, in reading this thread, I've realized just how out-of-date my knowledge of AIDS is. I think my education stopped somewhere in the mid-90s.

Can someone please point me toward a good source of information that is neither all scare tactics (for teens) nor all goodness and light (for those in the danger zone)? :)

I don't really know what type of information you're looking for. I would start with this. It's written for patients, but I'm not sure how helpful it really is for the lay person. The pay version of that website is what doctors tend to use for a primary source when they're looking up the latest evidence based medical practices and information.
http://www.uptodate.com/contents/search?search=HIV&sp=3&searchType=PLAIN_TEXT&source=USER_INPUT&searchControl=TOP_PULLDOWN&searchOffset=

I guess just to start off with - there's a difference between HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) and AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). HIV is the virus that causes the infection. Think of AIDS as more of an end game. If you don't receive treatment, the likely end result of an HIV infection is AIDS when your CD4 white blood cell count drops below a defined level. If a patient adheres well to their HAART drug therapy the virus can essentially be held at bay. They will develop AIDS eventually when the virus escapes suppression, but they can live long lives relative to what was possible in the 80s and 90s.

If you have any specific questions I can try my best to answer.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 19, 2012, 10:31:34 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2012, 10:28:19 PM
Oh, massa sir, please let me know how to get to the promised land. Please Unca Seedy?

Only if you sing for me, boy. When you was slaves, you sang like birds.  Go on, how 'bout a good ol' nigger work song?

Reply hazy, try again.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 19, 2012, 09:21:07 PM
I'm told that eating an albino is the holistic approach.   As for real medicine Fate would know.  But Grumbler drove him off.

He didn't run me off (yet). Medical school just keeps you busier than college.

Quote from: Fate on July 19, 2012, 10:38:50 PM
I don't really know what type of information you're looking for.

Current prognosis, treatments, and general ways to contain the infection when living with and/or around someone with HIV/AIDS, mostly. Obviously, all of that will have changed since Freddy Mercury died.

QuoteI would start with this. It's written for patients, but I'm not sure how helpful it really is for the lay person. The pay version of that website is what doctors tend to use for a primary source when they're looking up the latest evidence based medical practices and information.
http://www.uptodate.com/contents/search?search=HIV&sp=3&searchType=PLAIN_TEXT&source=USER_INPUT&searchControl=TOP_PULLDOWN&searchOffset=

Thanks. That'll be helpful. :)

QuoteI guess just to start off with - there's a difference between HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) and AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). HIV is the virus that causes the infection. Think of AIDS as more of an end game. If you don't receive treatment, the likely end result of an HIV infection is AIDS when your CD4 white blood cell count drops below a defined level. If a patient adheres well to their HAART drug therapy the virus can essentially be held at bay. They will develop AIDS eventually when the virus escapes suppression, but they can live long lives relative to what was possible in the 80s and 90s.

If you have any specific questions I can try my best to answer.

Whoa there, Sparky. Don't go too fast for me.

This was kind of known even back then, but thanks. I'll read the article, and if I still have questions, I'll look you up. :)

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 09:51:42 PM
Fuck it, everyone for themselves.  Fuck the poor that won't be able to afford the test, fuck the illiterate that won't be able to read the instructions, and fuck the emotionally hanicapped that won't be able to follow up with doing the right thing.

None of that makes any sense unless you're assuming home tests will somehow eliminate the availability of professionally administered tests, rather than providing an alternative for those who want it.

Quote from: dps on July 20, 2012, 12:08:04 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 09:51:42 PM
Fuck it, everyone for themselves.  Fuck the poor that won't be able to afford the test, fuck the illiterate that won't be able to read the instructions, and fuck the emotionally hanicapped that won't be able to follow up with doing the right thing.

None of that makes any sense unless you're assuming home tests will somehow eliminate the availability of professionally administered tests, rather than providing an alternative for those who want it.

It makes perfect sense as long as you operate under the presumption that people are not capable of deciding for themselves between those alternatives in an appropriate manner, and hence it would be best for the state to make one decision that applies to everyone, all the time.

This nicely illustrates the "liberal" (and I use the term *very* loosely in this context) end of the spectrum when it comes to the anti-liberty pressures. Conservatives (and of course I am generalizing) are happy stomping on liberty because they think people will make immoral decisions ("lets force people to remain married, because that is good for them and divorce is immoral!"), liberals stomp on liberty because they think people are too stupid to make good decisions ("lets force people to go to a clinic to get a HIV test because they are too stupid to handle the results on their own".

http://news.yahoo.com/nobel-laureate-discoverer-hiv-says-cure-sight-071316447.html

QuoteThe Nobel laureate who helped to discover HIV says a cure for AIDS is in sight following recent discoveries, in an interview with AFP ahead of a global conference on the disease.

Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2008 as part of a team that discovered the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes AIDS, said scientific research was zeroing in on a cure for the illness.

She cited a patient in Berlin who appears to have been cured through a bone marrow transplant, "which proves that finding a way of eliminating the virus from the body is something that is realistic."

Other sources of optimism are the small minority of patients -- less than 0.3 percent -- who exhibit no symptoms of the virus without ever receiving treatment; and a small group in France who received antiretroviral drugs and now live without treatment or symptoms, Barre-Sinoussi said.

"There is hope... but don't ask me for a date because we do not know."

She also said that it would be possible "in principle" to eliminate the AIDS pandemic by 2050, if barriers to drug access could be eliminated.

The main barriers there were not scientific but political, economic and social, she said: the problem was lack of access to testing and drugs in poor and rural areas, as well as the stigma around the virus, which undermines early detection and treatment.

Some 25,000 people -- including celebrities, scientists and HIV sufferers -- are expected in the US capital on Sunday to call for more strident global action to address the three-decade AIDS epidemic.

Deaths and infections are down in the parts of the world most ravaged by the disease, while the number of people on treatment has risen 20 percent from 2010 to 2011, reaching eight million people in needy countries.

However this is only about half the people who should be on treatment worldwide, suggesting much more remains to be done
.
More than 34 million people worldwide are living with HIV, a higher number than ever before, and around 30 million have died from AIDS-related causes since the disease first emerged in the 1980s, according to UNAIDS.

Quote from: Berkut on July 20, 2012, 09:51:54 AM
This nicely illustrates the "liberal" (and I use the term *very* loosely in this context)...

It has always amused me that, in the US, "liberal" means, in fact, anti-liberal.  You and I are liberals, and CdM is not, pretty everywhere but the US.

Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2012, 10:39:27 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 19, 2012, 10:31:34 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2012, 10:28:19 PM
Oh, massa sir, please let me know how to get to the promised land. Please Unca Seedy?

Only if you sing for me, boy. When you was slaves, you sang like birds.  Go on, how 'bout a good ol' nigger work song?

Reply hazy, try again.

sing "The Camptown Ladies"   :secret:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2012, 10:22:45 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 18, 2012, 10:21:44 PM
It might not be a good idea to abandon the fight for justice in your homeland.

I've got Ed Schultz.  He's my daddy bear.

You're also got Rev. Sharpton.

RESIST WE MUCH!

Quote from: derspiess on July 20, 2012, 11:20:09 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2012, 10:39:27 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 19, 2012, 10:31:34 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2012, 10:28:19 PM
Oh, massa sir, please let me know how to get to the promised land. Please Unca Seedy?

Only if you sing for me, boy. When you was slaves, you sang like birds.  Go on, how 'bout a good ol' nigger work song?

Reply hazy, try again.

sing "The Camptown Ladies"   :secret:

"Gwine Run All Night" aka "De Camptown Races" :secret:

Quote from: grumbler on July 20, 2012, 11:52:23 AM

Quote from: derspiess on July 20, 2012, 11:20:09 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2012, 10:39:27 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 19, 2012, 10:31:34 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2012, 10:28:19 PM
Oh, massa sir, please let me know how to get to the promised land. Please Unca Seedy?

Only if you sing for me, boy. When you was slaves, you sang like birds.  Go on, how 'bout a good ol' nigger work song?

Reply hazy, try again.

sing "The Camptown Ladies"   :secret:

"Gwine Run All Night" aka "De Camptown Races" :secret:

Take that up with Mel Brooks :secret:

Quote from: derspiess on July 20, 2012, 11:54:13 AM
Take that up with Mel Brooks :secret:

Mel Brooks deliberately misnamed the song.  :secret:

Quote from: grumbler on July 20, 2012, 12:48:56 PM

Quote from: derspiess on July 20, 2012, 11:54:13 AM
Take that up with Mel Brooks :secret:

Mel Brooks deliberately misnamed the song.  :secret:

That's nice.  Point?

None of this seems to be about HIV. :hmm:

Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2012, 01:29:03 PM
None of this seems to be about HIV. :hmm:

But we have established that Grumbles and Berkut make a nice couple.

Quote from: derspiess on July 20, 2012, 12:54:58 PM

Quote from: grumbler on July 20, 2012, 12:48:56 PM

Quote from: derspiess on July 20, 2012, 11:54:13 AM
Take that up with Mel Brooks :secret:

Mel Brooks deliberately misnamed the song.  :secret:

That's nice.  Point?

No more point to my post than yours. :hug:

QuoteFewer Americans suppressing HIV virus, study finds

Fewer Americans than previously thought are controlling their HIV infections and potentially putting the public at higher risk, according to a new study from Johns Hopkins University and University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers found that there are tens of thousands of people — particularly young adults, blacks, injection drug users and the uninsured — that are not consistently suppressing their viral loads. Mostly, they are not adhering to their drug regimens.

And when patients go on and off their medications, they can become resistant to therapy and put other people in greater danger of contracting the virus that causes AIDS.

"The drugs do work and are good at suppressing the virus," said Dr. Kelly Gebo, senior study investigator and infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University. "What was surprising was at any one point in time people were doing well, but they weren't staying suppressed."

The researchers found that past studies were mostly only measuring one blood test. They looked at 100,000 tests from more than 30,000 patients over a decade in what's believed to be the longest such review. They found 72 percent were tightly controlling their viral loads, which was lower than the 87 percent found in past research.

Still, the numbers were up significantly from 2001, when only about 45 percent were tightly controlling their viral loads, noted Gebo, an associate professor in Hopkins' School of Medicine and the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

That's probably because many people can now take one daily, multi-drug pill. But when the patients become resistant to one drug in the mix they must take different medications in multiple pills. That can increase the odds of more slip ups, the researchers said.

They also can pass on a resistant strain of HIV, they said.

More needs to be done to ensure that those infected are taking their medications and being properly advised by their doctors, said Gebo and Dr. Baligh Yehia, a postdoctoral fellow in Pennsylvania's School of Medicine who trained as a medical resident at Johns Hopkins. They plan some more research on that front.

The current study results are expected to be published online July 25 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, to coincide with the XIX International AIDS Conference in Washington, which began Sunday.

There are almost 1.2 million people infected with HIV in the United States and 23,000 in Maryland. About 426,000 take antiretroviral drugs and are in routine medical care. The virus is considered suppressed when there are 400 or fewer viral copies per milliliter of blood.

"An individual who misses one day's worth of drugs is at risk of becoming resistant," Yehia said. "When you consider that over a large population, that's how people spread the virus. ... And they may be spreading the resistant kind. It's a dangerous spiral."

The researchers said they couldn't say for sure why some populations were worse at suppressing their loads, but suspected adherence problems. Other reasons would be side effects or drug interactions.

Adherence was cited recently by infectious disease experts as the reason why a drug recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for prevention of HIV may not be widely prescribed, in addition to its cost. This study may add some fuel to that argument, the researcher said.

"People who have the disease know they need to take the drugs and don't," Gebo said. "If you're trying to prevent HIV, that's a whole other ball of wax."

Added Yehia: "We've made progress, but being able to take a pill every day is a lot harder than previously thought."

What? People with HIV, left to their own devices, developing resistance to drug therapy and putting the public at higher risk?  Surely not in America!  FREEDOMISM ANDZ LIBERTYNESS

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2012, 05:54:47 PM

Quote

The researchers found that there are tens of thousands of people — particularly young adults, blacks, injection drug users and the uninsured — that are not consistently suppressing their viral loads. Mostly, they are not adhering to their drug regimens.

What? People with HIV, left to their own devices, developing resistance to drug therapy and putting the public at higher risk?  Surely not in America!  FREEDOMISM ANDZ LIBERTYNESS

I would guess that a large chunk of those are the uninsured. Roughly 25% of the applications that I receive for the Federal insurance plan are HIV positive and have not had insurance for six months or longer (most longer than a year).

That being said, there's something to what Seedy says in this. Taking the test in a clinic and/or getting the results over the phone from a counselor means that options for insurance and programs to help pay for the necessary meds can be quickly and easily given.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2012, 05:54:47 PM

QuoteFewer Americans suppressing HIV virus, study finds

Fewer Americans than previously thought are controlling their HIV infections and potentially putting the public at higher risk, according to a new study from Johns Hopkins University and University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers found that there are tens of thousands of people — particularly young adults, blacks, injection drug users and the uninsured — that are not consistently suppressing their viral loads. Mostly, they are not adhering to their drug regimens.

And when patients go on and off their medications, they can become resistant to therapy and put other people in greater danger of contracting the virus that causes AIDS.

"The drugs do work and are good at suppressing the virus," said Dr. Kelly Gebo, senior study investigator and infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University. "What was surprising was at any one point in time people were doing well, but they weren't staying suppressed."

The researchers found that past studies were mostly only measuring one blood test. They looked at 100,000 tests from more than 30,000 patients over a decade in what's believed to be the longest such review. They found 72 percent were tightly controlling their viral loads, which was lower than the 87 percent found in past research.

Still, the numbers were up significantly from 2001, when only about 45 percent were tightly controlling their viral loads, noted Gebo, an associate professor in Hopkins' School of Medicine and the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

That's probably because many people can now take one daily, multi-drug pill. But when the patients become resistant to one drug in the mix they must take different medications in multiple pills. That can increase the odds of more slip ups, the researchers said.

They also can pass on a resistant strain of HIV, they said.

More needs to be done to ensure that those infected are taking their medications and being properly advised by their doctors, said Gebo and Dr. Baligh Yehia, a postdoctoral fellow in Pennsylvania's School of Medicine who trained as a medical resident at Johns Hopkins. They plan some more research on that front.

The current study results are expected to be published online July 25 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, to coincide with the XIX International AIDS Conference in Washington, which began Sunday.

There are almost 1.2 million people infected with HIV in the United States and 23,000 in Maryland. About 426,000 take antiretroviral drugs and are in routine medical care. The virus is considered suppressed when there are 400 or fewer viral copies per milliliter of blood.

"An individual who misses one day's worth of drugs is at risk of becoming resistant," Yehia said. "When you consider that over a large population, that's how people spread the virus. ... And they may be spreading the resistant kind. It's a dangerous spiral."

The researchers said they couldn't say for sure why some populations were worse at suppressing their loads, but suspected adherence problems. Other reasons would be side effects or drug interactions.

Adherence was cited recently by infectious disease experts as the reason why a drug recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for prevention of HIV may not be widely prescribed, in addition to its cost. This study may add some fuel to that argument, the researcher said.

"People who have the disease know they need to take the drugs and don't," Gebo said. "If you're trying to prevent HIV, that's a whole other ball of wax."

Added Yehia: "We've made progress, but being able to take a pill every day is a lot harder than previously thought."

What? People with HIV, left to their own devices, developing resistance to drug therapy and putting the public at higher risk?  Surely not in America!  FREEDOMISM ANDZ LIBERTYNESS

Commie, Man in his natural state would never do something this stupid.  We must have Liberty to avoid such misuse of drugs!

What is this debate even about?

Quote from: merithyn on July 22, 2012, 06:22:10 PM
That being said, there's something to what Seedy says in this. Taking the test in a clinic and/or getting the results over the phone from a counselor means that options for insurance and programs to help pay for the necessary meds can be quickly and easily given.

Because the uninsured are likely to be seeking out a $60 at home kit? Also, why would someone want to test themselves for HIV - if they didn't plan to do anything about it?

Different note, I like how the article obscures the fact that the number of individuals controlling their viral loads has increased since 2001.  Here's another article which seems to be a little more...forthcoming?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-07/jhmi-hsn071912.php

QuoteAmong the study's specific findings was that the percentage of participants who tightly controlled their HIV disease was 72 percent in 2010, the last year for which viral load counts were analyzed. This represented a major increase from 45 percent in 2001, but was significantly less than the 77 percent to 87 percent figures widely cited in 2011 reports from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in studies by other leading Hopkins and Canadian researchers.

QuoteFewer Americans suppressing HIV virus, study finds

I wonder what they think the "V" in HIV stands for.

Quote from: Fate on July 22, 2012, 10:39:37 PM
What is this debate even about?

Seedy doesn't like the idea that people could have an at-home test for HIV because he thinks that they'll then not seek treatment / be able to emotionally cope.  Oddly, when confronted with the fact that at-home testing already existed (though slow which ensured more nail-biting while testers waited results) and that said tests are not really affordable for the poor (whom he posits are too ill-informed, ignorant etc to seek help if they tested themselves) - he then proceeds to rant about how no one in this country cares about the poor, healthcare, each other(?)

I'm sure it's something that the HIV epidemiologists are going to watch. I don't understand why people would be less likely to seek treatment if they learned they were positive at home. I have a feeling a lot of high risk populations like prostitutes will test themselves more frequently and know if they are positive sooner because it's so easy to do.

But there is no way to force a legally competent adult to take their medication. The most we can do is quarantine the individual when the public health risk is sufficiently great. HIV doesn't meet that standard because it is generally spread by intimate sexual contact. Multi-drug resistant tuberculosis does meet the criteria (because it is airborne) and we can quarantine you if you don't take your meds.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2012, 05:54:47 PM

QuoteFewer Americans suppressing HIV virus, study finds

Fewer Americans than previously thought a
re controlling their HIV infections and potentially putting the public at higher risk, according to a new study from Johns Hopkins University and University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers found that there are tens of thousands of people — particularly young adults, blacks, injection drug users and the uninsured — that are not consistently suppressing their viral loads. Mostly, they are not adhering to their drug regimens.

And when patients go on and off their medications, they can become resistant to therapy and put other people in greater danger of contracting the virus that causes AIDS.

"The drugs do work and are good at suppressing the virus," said Dr. Kelly Gebo, senior study investigator and infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University. "What was surprising was at any one point in time people were doing well, but they weren't staying suppressed."

The researchers found that past studies were mostly only measuring one blood test. They looked at 100,000 tests from more than 30,000 patients over a decade in what's believed to be the longest such review. They found 72 percent were tightly controlling their viral loads, which was lower than the 87 percent found in past research.

Still, the numbers were up significantly from 2001, when only about 45 percent were tightly controlling their viral loads, noted Gebo, an associate professor in Hopkins' School of Medicine and the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

That's probably because many people can now take one daily, multi-drug pill. But when the patients become resistant to one drug in the mix they must take different medications in multiple pills. That can increase the odds of more slip ups, the researchers said.

They also can pass on a resistant strain of HIV, they said.

More needs to be done to ensure that those infected are taking their medications and being properly advised by their doctors, said Gebo and Dr. Baligh Yehia, a postdoctoral fellow in Pennsylvania's School of Medicine who trained as a medical resident at Johns Hopkins. They plan some more research on that front.

The current study results are expected to be published online July 25 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, to coincide with the XIX International AIDS Conference in Washington, which began Sunday.

There are almost 1.2 million people infected with HIV in the United States and 23,000 in Maryland. About 426,000 take antiretroviral drugs and are in routine medical care. The virus is considered suppressed when there are 400 or fewer viral copies per milliliter of blood.

"An individual who misses one day's worth of drugs is at risk of becoming resistant," Yehia said. "When you consider that over a large population, that's how people spread the virus. ... And they may be spreading the resistant kind. It's a dangerous spiral."

The researchers said they couldn't say for sure why some populations were worse at suppressing their loads, but suspected adherence problems. Other reasons would be side effects or drug interactions.

Adherence was cited recently by infectious disease experts as the reason why a drug recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for prevention of HIV may not be widely prescribed, in addition to its cost. This study may add some fuel to that argument, the researcher said.

"People who have the disease know they need to take the drugs and don't," Gebo said. "If you're trying to prevent HIV, that's a whole other ball of wax."

Added Yehia: "We've made progress, but being able to take a pill every day is a lot harder than previously thought."

What? People with HIV, left to their own devices, developing resistance to drug therapy and putting the public at higher risk?  Surely not in America!  FREEDOMISM ANDZ LIBERTYNESS

Your article proves rather nicely that even with supervision, some people are stupid.

It exactly argues against your claim that by denying people the right to test themselves, we can control some minorities stupidity.

Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2012, 11:54:45 PM
It exactly argues against your claim that by denying people the right to test themselves, we can control some minorities stupidity.

First HIV people, now minorities.  When will your hate end?

When will your brain start functioning? :(

My brain's fine.  Enjoy your HIV tests with liberty and justice for all, faggot.

Freedom and liberty to Seedy and his ilk is just a punch line. It's rather sad really.

Save it for the Convention, Ron.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2012, 07:56:03 AM
My brain's fine.  Enjoy your HIV tests with liberty and justice for all, faggot.

Sure. I'm sure we'll all continue to be fine given that you've shown no evidence of a problem. And your own article showed that treatment among vulnerable groups has improved radically since 2001. :)

Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2012, 10:40:59 PM

Because the uninsured are likely to be seeking out a $60 at home kit? Also, why would someone want to test themselves for HIV - if they didn't plan to do anything about it?

Uninsured doesn't mean destitute. Until last year, it meant sick. Now, those people are able to finally get insurance, but may not know how to do so. Just because they can't pay for coverage doesn't mean that they don't care about what's wrong with them. And while most can eventually figure out how to get care, going through a clinic might mean finding out sooner how to do so.

I don't agree with Seedy. I'm simply saying that there are advantages to having a conversation with a counselour sooner rather than later once you find out you have HIV.

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 11:17:22 AM
Uninsured doesn't mean destitute. Until last year, it meant sick. Now, those people are able to finally get insurance, but may not know how to do so. Just because they can't pay for coverage doesn't mean that they don't care about what's wrong with them. And while most can eventually figure out how to get care, going through a clinic might mean finding out sooner how to do so.

Maybe. Still I wonder how many of these individuals would actually be (are actually) purchasing at home tests vs visiting clinic.

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 11:17:22 AM
I don't agree with Seedy. I'm simply saying that there are advantages to having a conversation with a counselour sooner rather than later once you find out you have HIV.

I don't think anyone has disagreed with that. :)

To the libertarians in the thread:

Accuotane can cause birth defects if taken during pregnancy. The FDA mandates usage of birth control if women of child bearing age wish to use it. If pregnant, women cannot be prescribed Accuotane. Women are also subjected to mandatory pregnancy tests while using Accuotane.(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPLEDGE for more details).

Are these requirements justifiable or are they also invasions of privacy/liberty?

I don't see how that's related...:unsure:

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 11:17:22 AM
Uninsured doesn't mean destitute. 

I don't have health insurance, and frankly I don't want it.  I just pay my doctor's bill out-of-pocket.  Even 20-some years ago, when health insurance was relatively affordable compared to what it is now, I was paying more a year in health insurance premiums than I would have paid in health care expenses if I had paid everything out of pocket.  I finally got fed up with that, and cancelled my health insurance a couple of years ago.

Quote from: dps on July 23, 2012, 12:34:15 PM
I don't have health insurance, and frankly I don't want it.  I just pay my doctor's bill out-of-pocket.  Even 20-some years ago, when health insurance was relatively affordable compared to what it is now, I was paying more a year in health insurance premiums than I would have paid in health care expenses if I had paid everything out of pocket.  I finally got fed up with that, and cancelled my health insurance a couple of years ago.

*smh*

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 11:17:22 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2012, 10:40:59 PM

Because the uninsured are likely to be seeking out a $60 at home kit? Also, why would someone want to test themselves for HIV - if they didn't plan to do anything about it?

Uninsured doesn't mean destitute. Until last year, it meant sick. Now, those people are able to finally get insurance, but may not know how to do so. Just because they can't pay for coverage doesn't mean that they don't care about what's wrong with them. And while most can eventually figure out how to get care, going through a clinic might mean finding out sooner how to do so.

I don't agree with Seedy. I'm simply saying that there are advantages to having a conversation with a counselour sooner rather than later once you find out you have HIV.

I don't think there is any question that is the case. In fact, if I had reason to want an HIV test, I think I would go to a clinic or my doctor rather than get one at home.

But that isn't the question - the question is whether or not it should be available for the individual to make that choice themselves.

The argument of the form "The individual should not have that choice because I don't think some individuals will make the right choice" is rather excellent evidence that the speaker does not understand what freedom and liberty actually mean.

Quote from: dps on July 23, 2012, 12:34:15 PM
I don't have health insurance, and frankly I don't want it.  I just pay my doctor's bill out-of-pocket.  Even 20-some years ago, when health insurance was relatively affordable compared to what it is now, I was paying more a year in health insurance premiums than I would have paid in health care expenses if I had paid everything out of pocket.  I finally got fed up with that, and cancelled my health insurance a couple of years ago.

Why not get at least major illness coverage? It's cheap, and it covers you if you end up needing major medical, like a hospitalization, surgery, or have a serious accident or illness.

Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2012, 12:39:48 PM
I don't think there is any question that is the case. In fact, if I had reason to want an HIV test, I think I would go to a clinic or my doctor rather than get one at home.

But that isn't the question - the question is whether or not it should be available for the individual to make that choice themselves.

The argument of the form "The individual should not have that choice because I don't think some individuals will make the right choice" is rather excellent evidence that the speaker does not understand what freedom and liberty actually mean.

Or they disagree with your use of the terms. :)

That being said, I'm inclined to agree with garbon and you on this subject. I don't think it's the government's right to decide for me how I am tested.

Good Lord, Libertarians can be so fucking condescending.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2012, 12:48:47 PM
Good Lord, Libertarians can be so fucking condescending.

Seedy sounded pretty condescending when he spoke about how he knows best. :huh:

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 12:43:36 PM
That being said, I'm inclined to agree with garbon and you on this subject. I don't think it's the government's right to decide for me how I am tested.

Why not jump on the anti-vaccination bandwagon while you're listening to your body?

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 12:52:46 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2012, 12:48:47 PM
Good Lord, Libertarians can be so fucking condescending.

Seedy sounded pretty condescending when he spoke about how he knows best. :huh:

Not especially.  CdM was arguing an issue of public policy, and then Berkut came along and made it an argument over religious principles along lines of 'freedom' and 'liberty', which only he and his libertarian priesthood can interpret correctly.

Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2012, 01:11:43 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 12:52:46 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2012, 12:48:47 PM
Good Lord, Libertarians can be so fucking condescending.

Seedy sounded pretty condescending when he spoke about how he knows best. :huh:

Not especially.  CdM was arguing an issue of public policy, and then Berkut came along and made it an argument over religious principles along lines of 'freedom' and 'liberty', which only he and his libertarian priesthood can interpret correctly.

Yes he was making an issue of public policy with the assumption that he knows better than all of his imagined/hypothetical people. It then turned out that we already have at-home testing and it doesn't seem to be a public policy issue.

Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2012, 01:08:23 PM

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 12:43:36 PM
That being said, I'm inclined to agree with garbon and you on this subject. I don't think it's the government's right to decide for me how I am tested.

Why not jump on the anti-vaccination bandwagon while you're listening to your body?

Because some vaccinations have value. :)

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 01:26:12 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2012, 01:08:23 PM

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 12:43:36 PM
That being said, I'm inclined to agree with garbon and you on this subject. I don't think it's the government's right to decide for me how I am tested.

Why not jump on the anti-vaccination bandwagon while you're listening to your body?

Because some vaccinations have value. :)

:yeahright:

Only some?

Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 01:33:13 PM

:yeahright:

Only some?

Okay, they all have value in some fashion. But I don't happen to believe that they all have the same value. Some vaccines are necessary; some are just nice to have.

I'm pretty sure I've made it clear in the past that this is my stance on this.

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 01:14:29 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2012, 01:11:43 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 12:52:46 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2012, 12:48:47 PM
Good Lord, Libertarians can be so fucking condescending.

Seedy sounded pretty condescending when he spoke about how he knows best. :huh:

Not especially.  CdM was arguing an issue of public policy, and then Berkut came along and made it an argument over religious principles along lines of 'freedom' and 'liberty', which only he and his libertarian priesthood can interpret correctly.

Yes he was making an issue of public policy with the assumption that he knows better than all of his imagined/hypothetical people. It then turned out that we already have at-home testing and it doesn't seem to be a public policy issue.

And Berkut outright tells use that he knows better then most people what liberty means and that he knows better then CdM.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2012, 01:45:52 PM
And Berkut outright tells use that he knows better then most people what liberty means and that he knows better then CdM.

Okay, so they were both condescending. Yippee?

Quote from: stjaba on July 23, 2012, 11:55:18 AM
To the libertarians in the thread:

Accuotane can cause birth defects if taken during pregnancy. The FDA mandates usage of birth control if women of child bearing age wish to use it. If pregnant, women cannot be prescribed Accuotane. Women are also subjected to mandatory pregnancy tests while using Accuotane.(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPLEDGE for more details).

Are these requirements justifiable or are they also invasions of privacy/liberty?

It's a pretty retarded system. There is zero reason to limit accutane access to people who can't physically get pregnant, be they genetically XY or XX with amenorrhea.

But it's a voluntary system. You don't have to use the drug. Failure to treat acne doesn't result in death. I don't think you can really compare it to HIV medications.

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 01:36:20 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 01:33:13 PM

:yeahright:

Only some?

Okay, they all have value in some fashion. But I don't happen to believe that they all have the same value. Some vaccines are necessary; some are just nice to have.

I'm pretty sure I've made it clear in the past that this is my stance on this.

Not sure what that distinction means.  After all, certainly not everyone "needs" a chicken pox vaccine as a life or death type issue but some people do.  Not sure that means a chicken pox has less value than a vaccine for something like HIV which occurs less frequently.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2012, 12:48:47 PM
Good Lord, Libertarians can be so fucking condescending.

I guess if Berkut is one I am as well.  It is what we use to mask our rage at the system.

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 02:04:02 PM
Not sure what that distinction means.  After all, certainly not everyone "needs" a chicken pox vaccine as a life or death type issue but some people do.  Not sure that means a chicken pox has less value than a vaccine for something like HIV which occurs less frequently.

I'd say the chickenpox vaccine has quite a bit less value than an HIV vaccine. Without the chickenpox vaccine, you get an uncomfortable rash and low-grade fever for two weeks. Without the HIV vaccine, you die.

Seems fairly simple which one is more valuable to society at large.

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 02:06:25 PM
I'd say the chickenpox vaccine has quite a bit less value than an HIV vaccine. Without the chickenpox vaccine, you get an uncomfortable rash and low-grade fever for two weeks. Without the HIV vaccine, you die.

But that isn't true. There are people who die of smallpox and there are lots of people in the west who have HIV and don't die because of it.

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 02:04:02 PM

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 01:36:20 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 01:33:13 PM

:yeahright:

Only some?

Okay, they all have value in some fashion. But I don't happen to believe that they all have the same value. Some vaccines are necessary; some are just nice to have.

I'm pretty sure I've made it clear in the past that this is my stance on this.

Not sure what that distinction means.  After all, certainly not everyone "needs" a chicken pox vaccine as a life or death type issue but some people do.  Not sure that means a chicken pox has less value than a vaccine for something like HIV which occurs less frequently.

Before the vaccine we had about 10,000 hospital admissions and 100 deaths a year due to chickenpox. It's not an entirely benign virus.

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 02:06:25 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 02:04:02 PM
Not sure what that distinction means.  After all, certainly not everyone "needs" a chicken pox vaccine as a life or death type issue but some people do.  Not sure that means a chicken pox has less value than a vaccine for something like HIV which occurs less frequently.

I'd say the chickenpox vaccine has quite a bit less value than an HIV vaccine. Without the chickenpox vaccine, you get an uncomfortable rash and low-grade fever for two weeks. Without the HIV vaccine, you die.

Seems fairly simple which one is more valuable to society at large.

Obviously more lives would be saved by an HIV vaccine, but it doesn't exist. Today we are saving lives and significantly reducing hospitalizations with the varicella vaccine. It has a lot of value for our society.

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 02:11:33 PM

But that isn't true. There are people who die of smallpox and there are lots of people in the west who have HIV and don't die because of it.

Smallpox =/= chickenpox

Quote from: Fate on July 23, 2012, 02:15:04 PM
Obviously more lives would be saved by an HIV vaccine, but it doesn't exist. Today we are saving lives and significantly reducing hospitalizations with the varicella vaccine. It has a lot of value for our society.

It has value. I'll leave it at that.

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 02:25:56 PM
Smallpox =/= chickenpox

True...:huh:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/25/deaths-from-chickenpox-down/

QuoteDeaths from chickenpox (the varicella virus) have dropped 97 percent in adolescents and children since the use of the vaccine began in 1995, new analysis shows.

"I think there's certainly the potential for very little disease in the future and very few deaths if we are to fully implement and maintain that program," said Jane Seward, deputy director, Division of Viral Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study appears in journal Pediatrics. Researchers from the CDC looked at data from 1990 to 2007.

"Every kid did get chickenpox and, in the pre-vaccine era, there were 3-4 million cases a year," Seward said. "What people may not have realized, every year, about 105 people died of chickenpox. About half of those were children and about 11,000-12,000 were hospitalized with severe complications. We started preventing the disease to really prevent those very serious complications."

Among adults younger than 50, the decline was 96 percent; overall, the decline was 88 percent.  Seward pointed out that adults get more serious chickenpox than children and also need two doses of the vaccine.

"They have about twenty times higher risk of dying from chickenpox than children do. So it is really important for adults who haven't had chickenpox to get the vaccine."

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 02:01:31 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2012, 01:45:52 PM
And Berkut outright tells use that he knows better then most people what liberty means and that he knows better then CdM.

Okay, so they were both condescending. Yippee?

Yes, but Raz is only ideologically opposed to one of them.  :)

Fate, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the unintended affects of the vaccine was that it has caused a marked INCREASE in shingles in adults, which is far more dangerous, painful, and deadly than chickenpox is to children. In addition, because one of the ways to maintain immunity from chickenpox is through continued exposure - ie from being around children with the disease - it's becoming increasingly common for adults to get regular old chickenpox, which is, again, far more dangerous.

The vaccine doesn't have long-term affects, which is a major concern given that the disease IS so dangerous to adults comparatively.

So, while it has some value, it also has deleterious affects as well.

Quote from: Habbaku on July 23, 2012, 02:44:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 02:01:31 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2012, 01:45:52 PM
And Berkut outright tells use that he knows better then most people what liberty means and that he knows better then CdM.

Okay, so they were both condescending. Yippee?

Yes, but Raz is only ideologically opposed to one of them.  :)

Surely everyone (except for Berkut and grumbler) is ideologically opposed to libertarians?  Even those of us who aren't particularily ideological should oppose the destruction of society.

Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2012, 02:49:49 PM
Surely everyone (except for Berkut and grumbler) is ideologically opposed to libertarians?  Even those of us who aren't particularily ideological should oppose the destruction of society.

Habbaku and Scipio are actual Libertarians, as far as I know, as opposed to Berkut.

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 02:45:44 PM
Fate, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the unintended affects of the vaccine was that it has caused a marked INCREASE in shingles in adults, which is far more dangerous, painful, and deadly than chickenpox is to children. In addition, because one of the ways to maintain immunity from chickenpox is through continued exposure - ie from being around children with the disease - it's becoming increasingly common for adults to get regular old chickenpox, which is, again, far more dangerous.

The vaccine doesn't have long-term affects, which is a major concern given that the disease IS so dangerous to adults comparatively.

So, while it has some value, it also has deleterious affects as well.

We've a shingles vaccine too though.

True fact: About 3 years ago I was responsible for the first documented case of chicken pox the Denver area had seen in like 10-15 years.

I came down with shingles, not knowing I had it (thought it was some weird Crohn's symptom).  I felt kinda crappy, but not enough to cancel my trip out to Denver to see my best friend and his family.  His little girl was due for her chicken pox shot the next month, but thanks to me she didn't end up needing it.  Their pediatrician made a big deal about it & arranged for some local med school students to come out & observe because it was a rare opportunity to see chicken pox symptoms.

When I got back home I was feeling worse and the rash on my shoulder got worse, so I went to the doctor & he immediately diagnosed that it was shingles.  Then the next day my own kid came down with chicken pox.  Thankfully it ended there.

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 02:55:39 PM
We've a shingles vaccine too though.

Sure, and if adults went in every four years to get it, they'd be fine.

Or, we could let nature take its course, allow children to get the disease once in their lives - with a minimal chance at complications* - and no one would need any follow-up shots ever.



*Yes, minimal. 25 times more people die from a bumped head every year than from chickenpox prior to the vaccine. Are we now going to require that people wear helmets 24/7?



EDIT: Bah, typo. It's 25 times, not 250 times.

But... but... think of the children!!!11

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 03:03:21 PM
*Yes, minimal. 25 times more people die from a bumped head every year than from chickenpox prior to the vaccine. Are we now going to require that people wear helmets 24/7?

I suspect that is a false dichotomy.

Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2012, 03:10:46 PM

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 03:03:21 PM
*Yes, minimal. 25 times more people die from a bumped head every year than from chickenpox prior to the vaccine. Are we now going to require that people wear helmets 24/7?

I suspect that is a false dichotomy.

How so?

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tbi/detail_tbi.htm (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tbi/detail_tbi.htm)

QuoteTBI costs the country more than $56 billion a year, and more than 5 million Americans alive today have had a TBI resulting in a permanent need for help in performing daily activities. Survivors of TBI are often left with significant cognitive, behavioral, and communicative disabilities, and some patients develop long-term medical complications, such as epilepsy.

Other statistics dramatically tell the story of head injury in the United States. Each year:

· approximately 1.4 million people experience a TBI,

· approximately 50,000 people die from head injury,

· approximately 1 million head-injured people are treated in hospital emergency rooms, and

· approximately 230,000 people are hospitalized for TBI and survive.

There is a solution to the problem: stop allowing sports/games that are known to cause serious head injuries; keep children from playing tag, Red Rover, etc.; require all children under the age of 10 to wear helmets at all times. In short, there is a vaccine, if you will, for preventing thousands more deaths every year than chicken pox even came close to causing.

Yes, chickenpox causes deaths, rarely. Of the 4 million people who got chicken pox every year prior to the vaccine, only ~100 died of it, and there's a question of how many of them died due to limited medical intervention rather than from the disease itself. The varicella vaccine is, plain and simply, a convenience vaccine. Yes, it has value. Yes, it's useful. And yes, it causes long-term affects that had not been foreseen, and which has continued to cost time, money, and lives.

The false dichotomy is between the inconvenience of receiving a vaccine (a moment's pinprick), versus wearing a helmet 24/7.

Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 03:31:41 PM
The false dichotomy is between the inconvenience of receiving a vaccine (a moment's pinprick), versus wearing a helmet 24/7.

A pin-prick every few years for the rest of your life. A pin-prick that has its own concerns, as it can cause whomever gets it to end up with a mild case of the disease. And what happens if someone doesn't go get that pin-prick in a timely fashion?

I agree that this vaccine has value - for those who are at serious risk for problems with chicken pox. It seems, however, to be something that should not be forced on the population at large. I have no problem that the vaccine is available. I do, however, take issue that it is required.

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 03:35:42 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 03:31:41 PM
The false dichotomy is between the inconvenience of receiving a vaccine (a moment's pinprick), versus wearing a helmet 24/7.

A pin-prick every few years for the rest of your life. A pin-prick that has its own concerns, as it can cause whomever gets it to end up with a mild case of the disease. And what happens if someone doesn't go get that pin-prick in a timely fashion?

I agree that this vaccine has value - for those who are at serious risk for problems with chicken pox. It seems, however, to be something that should not be forced on the population at large. I have no problem that the vaccine is available. I do, however, take issue that it is required.

It is a false dochotmoy because it compares to things that are not alike, declares them alike, then demands that we make a choice that in fact we do not need to make at all.

We can certainly evaluate the pro and cons of chicken pox vaccines and decide that after careful consideration everyone should be vaccinated for chicken pox, and do so in a completely rational and reasoned manner, while also considering the dangers of bumping your head, and decide that despite the danger involved, forcing people to wear helmets 24/7 is not a reasonable of practical solution to the problem, and hence should not be codified.

Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2012, 03:39:05 PM
It is a false dochotmoy because it compares to things that are not alike, declares them alike, then demands that we make a choice that in fact we do not need to make at all.

We can certainly evaluate the pro and cons of chicken pox vaccines and decide that after careful consideration everyone should be vaccinated for chicken pox, and do so in a completely rational and reasoned manner, while also considering the dangers of bumping your head, and decide that despite the danger involved, forcing people to wear helmets 24/7 is not a reasonable of practical solution to the problem, and hence should not be codified.

It was hyperbole to show how small the danger of chickenpox is to society. Poorly done, yet no less true.

Yes, chickenpox can kill, though extremely rarely. And yes, the vaccine has value - to some. The only problem I have is with the requirement that all get the vaccine regardless of personal preference regarding how best to handle the disease.

There are two equally viable options: get the vaccine and ensuing boosters for the rest of your life, or opt to get the disease with the minute chance that you may end up in the hospital. That should definitely be a personal choice, since regardless, whomever is vaccinated will have to have the boosters whether everyone is vaccinated or not so long as the disease is in existence. Given that the US is one of the few countries that requires the vaccination, that will be for a very, very long time.

Quote from: stjaba on July 23, 2012, 11:55:18 AM
To the libertarians in the thread:

Accuotane can cause birth defects if taken during pregnancy. The FDA mandates usage of birth control if women of child bearing age wish to use it. If pregnant, women cannot be prescribed Accuotane. Women are also subjected to mandatory pregnancy tests while using Accuotane.(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPLEDGE for more details).

Are these requirements justifiable or are they also invasions of privacy/liberty?

To the authoritarians in the thread;  what does this have to do with the discussion?

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 03:47:06 PM
It was hyperbole to show how small the danger of chickenpox is to society. Poorly done, yet no less true.

Yes, chickenpox can kill, though extremely rarely. And yes, the vaccine has value - to some. The only problem I have is with the requirement that all get the vaccine regardless of personal preference regarding how best to handle the disease.

There are two equally viable options: get the vaccine and ensuing boosters for the rest of your life, or opt to get the disease with the minute chance that you may end up in the hospital. That should definitely be a personal choice, since regardless, whomever is vaccinated will have to have the boosters whether everyone is vaccinated or not so long as the disease is in existence. Given that the US is one of the few countries that requires the vaccination, that will be for a very, very long time.

Poor analogy, since chicken pox is a contagious disease, and the decision to get it may be the decision to spread it to others who didn't get a chance to make the decision.

I have no dog in the fight over the vaccine itself, but I do have a dog in the fight to stop inapt analogies.

Quote from: Habbaku on July 23, 2012, 02:44:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 02:01:31 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2012, 01:45:52 PM
And Berkut outright tells use that he knows better then most people what liberty means and that he knows better then CdM.

Okay, so they were both condescending. Yippee?

Yes, but Raz is only ideologically opposed to one of them.  :)

No, I'm also opposed to them for very practical purposes. 

You only need to wear your helmet from shortly before the impact to just afterwards.

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 03:03:21 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 02:55:39 PM
We've a shingles vaccine too though.

Sure, and if adults went in every four years to get it, they'd be fine.

Or, we could let nature take its course, allow children to get the disease once in their lives - with a minimal chance at complications* - and no one would need any follow-up shots ever.



*Yes, minimal. 25 times more people die from a bumped head every year than from chickenpox prior to the vaccine. Are we now going to require that people wear helmets 24/7?



EDIT: Bah, typo. It's 25 times, not 250 times.

some people will get scars if the disease is not treated.  So what do most parents do?  They go to the hospital with their kids to get prescription for some type of cream, especially for younger kids, to avoid them scratching it.

Cost of vaccination: 5$
Cost of a visit to the doctor + cream: above 100$.

Wich is more effective in reducing health care costs for everyone (even under private insurance, as global health care costs rises, so does your premium)?

With massive vaccination, diseases tend to be eradicated.  And it alleviates pressure on our healthcare systems.
So, vaccines are generally a good thing.
And this one last for life in most cases.  So, no issues there.

Quote from: merithyn on July 23, 2012, 03:35:42 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 03:31:41 PM
The false dichotomy is between the inconvenience of receiving a vaccine (a moment's pinprick), versus wearing a helmet 24/7.

A pin-prick every few years for the rest of your life.

between 6 (the lowest) and 30 years (the highest so far).  I wouldn't call it bad.

Absurd. People were not born to get shots every few years.

Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2012, 06:32:41 PM

Quote from: stjaba on July 23, 2012, 11:55:18 AM
To the libertarians in the thread:

Accuotane can cause birth defects if taken during pregnancy. The FDA mandates usage of birth control if women of child bearing age wish to use it. If pregnant, women cannot be prescribed Accuotane. Women are also subjected to mandatory pregnancy tests while using Accuotane.(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPLEDGE for more details).

Are these requirements justifiable or are they also invasions of privacy/liberty?

To the authoritarians in the thread;  what does this have to do with the discussion?

Heh-heh.  I don't consider myself a libertarian, though I certainly have some libertarian leanings.  But if the choice is between authoritarianism and libertarianism, I'll go with libertarianism.

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 08:37:13 PM
Absurd. People were not born to get shots every few years.

were people born to be sick every few years?  Or were they born to take pills every days?

I don't know enough about the duration of the vaccine, I have only Wikipedia as a source.  But it seems that in most cases, it lasts for life.  So, why not?  It contributes to the eradication of the diseases and lower health care costs.  Enough for me.

Anyway, about the subject at hand, it seems there are risk at distributing the drugs as prehemptive measure against aids.  Until such time as more studies are completed, I would refrain from giving it to the general population.  Especially at 14 000$ a dose.  It seems not only to create a false sense of security, but also runs the risk of creating a drug resistant HIV wich would throw us back 20 years in the r&d field for the disease.  In other words, it ain't worth the risk for now.  Tests should continue, though.

Quote from: dps on July 23, 2012, 08:53:04 PM

Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2012, 06:32:41 PM

Quote from: stjaba on July 23, 2012, 11:55:18 AM
To the libertarians in the thread:

Accuotane can cause birth defects if taken during pregnancy. The FDA mandates usage of birth control if women of child bearing age wish to use it. If pregnant, women cannot be prescribed Accuotane. Women are also subjected to mandatory pregnancy tests while using Accuotane.(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPLEDGE for more details).

Are these requirements justifiable or are they also invasions of privacy/liberty?

To the authoritarians in the thread;  what does this have to do with the discussion?

Heh-heh.  I don't consider myself a libertarian, though I certainly have some libertarian leanings.  But if the choice is between authoritarianism and libertarianism, I'll go with libertarianism.

Fortunately that isn't the choice.

Quote from: viper37 on July 23, 2012, 09:57:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 08:37:13 PM
Absurd. People were not born to get shots every few years.

were people born to be sick every few years?  Or were they born to take pills every days?

I don't know enough about the duration of the vaccine, I have only Wikipedia as a source.  But it seems that in most cases, it lasts for life.  So, why not?  It contributes to the eradication of the diseases and lower health care costs.  Enough for me.

Yes getting sick is natural.

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 10:15:34 PM

Quote from: viper37 on July 23, 2012, 09:57:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 08:37:13 PM
Absurd. People were not born to get shots every few years.

were people born to be sick every few years?  Or were they born to take pills every days?

I don't know enough about the duration of the vaccine, I have only Wikipedia as a source.  But it seems that in most cases, it lasts for life.  So, why not?  It contributes to the eradication of the diseases and lower health care costs.  Enough for me.

Yes getting sick is natural.

Historically, most people are born to die before reaching adulthood.  Of course, I don't think anybody is suggesting that's an outcome society should be aiming for.

Quote from: dps on July 24, 2012, 06:37:39 AM
Historically, most people are born to die before reaching adulthood.  Of course, I don't think anybody is suggesting that's an outcome society should be aiming for.

I do my part by funding abortion clinics.

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 10:15:34 PM

Quote from: viper37 on July 23, 2012, 09:57:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 08:37:13 PM
Absurd. People were not born to get shots every few years.

were people born to be sick every few years?  Or were they born to take pills every days?

I don't know enough about the duration of the vaccine, I have only Wikipedia as a source.  But it seems that in most cases, it lasts for life.  So, why not?  It contributes to the eradication of the diseases and lower health care costs.  Enough for me.

Yes getting sick is natural.

then there's no debate.  The drug cost too much and should not be given to interfere whith nature's course.

Quote from: viper37 on July 24, 2012, 09:54:47 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 10:15:34 PM

Quote from: viper37 on July 23, 2012, 09:57:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 08:37:13 PM
Absurd. People were not born to get shots every few years.

were people born to be sick every few years?  Or were they born to take pills every days?

I don't know enough about the duration of the vaccine, I have only Wikipedia as a source.  But it seems that in most cases, it lasts for life.  So, why not?  It contributes to the eradication of the diseases and lower health care costs.  Enough for me.

Yes getting sick is natural.

then there's no debate.  The drug cost too much and should not be given to interfere whith nature's course.

I'm glad you've listened to your body. :hug:

Quote from: viper37 on July 23, 2012, 10:01:12 PM
Anyway, about the subject at hand, it seems there are risk at distributing the drugs as prehemptive measure against aids.  Until such time as more studies are completed, I would refrain from giving it to the general population.  Especially at 14 000$ a dose.  It seems not only to create a false sense of security, but also runs the risk of creating a drug resistant HIV wich would throw us back 20 years in the r&d field for the disease.  In other words, it ain't worth the risk for now.  Tests should continue, though.

It costs 11000-14000 a year, not per dose.

ah, ok.  :)

Anyway, as Garbon said, it's nature's course for people to get sick, so we shouldn't interfere :)

Quote from: viper37 on July 24, 2012, 07:23:40 PM
Anyway, as Garbon said, it's nature's course for people to get sick, so we shouldn't interfere :)

:yes: :hug:

Quote from: viper37 on July 24, 2012, 07:23:40 PM
ah, ok.  :)

Anyway, as Garbon said, it's nature's course for people to get sick, so we shouldn't interfere :)

:rolleyes:

I love how people have to be all or nothing. I'm so glad that the world I live in is shades of gray, instead.

Quote from: merithyn on July 24, 2012, 11:24:37 PM
I'm so glad that the world I live in is shades of gray, instead.

Pretty sure we don't really need to hear about you and Max's BDSM sessions. ;)

Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 11:27:36 PM

Quote from: merithyn on July 24, 2012, 11:24:37 PM
I'm so glad that the world I live in is shades of gray, instead.

Pretty sure we don't really need to hear about you and Max's BDSM sessions. ;)

:lol:

Touche'. :sleep:

Got asked to participate in an ad study on OraQuick. They currently are positioning it as quick and you can do it from the comfort of your own home.  They show an image of a dog and its labeled the receptionist. :D

Good luck? :unsure:

Quote from: merithyn on July 26, 2012, 09:53:19 AM
Good luck? :unsure:

I just thought it was amusing with the timing/pictured seedy crying while watching the ad. Just an online thing so easy enough.

Quote from: garbon on July 26, 2012, 10:31:49 AM
I just thought it was amusing with the timing/pictured seedy crying while watching the ad. Just an online thing so easy enough.

Why should I give a royal rat fuck about a dog with a receptionist sign?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 26, 2012, 10:34:52 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 26, 2012, 10:31:49 AM
I just thought it was amusing with the timing/pictured seedy crying while watching the ad. Just an online thing so easy enough.

Why should I give a royal rat fuck about a dog with a receptionist sign?

You were so angry about people doing it at home - I thought it was funny they then spoofed a clinic visit. :D