I'm not necessarily opposed to this. I feel like it's akin to requiring vaccinations. I just hope that those taking it receive it for free and are guaranteed no drawbacks.
Most people could not afford that. Trying to force medication that ridiculously expensive onto people won't work.
If you consider side effects draw backs I think that'll be difficult. If one in four of all gay and bisexual persons are taking this drug at least a few of them are bound to have a reaction to the drug not intended by the manufacturer. So long as those adverse effects remain minor and do not overshadow the risk averted from HIV (it'd have to be a really bad side effect) I think it should be alright. As for price? We've already seen price gouging with drugs over 60 years old. While horrific, it is entirely possible that a company could purchase the rights to the drug and jack up the price to disgusting extremes. I am being rather pessimistic here and I really hope that the drug is accessible to those who need it most.
If health insurance plans/pharmaceutical industries make this affordable to all queer men, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to this. It just happens to be the price I'm concerned about, and that people taking Truvada/PrEP will use it as an excuse not to wear condoms at all, which is definitely incorrect.
I do believe Gilead Sciences (the maker) offers co-pay assistance cards to people. Here is the link for the company's program. Gilead Co-Pay Coupon Card I wonder that if 25% of gay men who have sex take Truvada will help curve/erradicate the transmission of HIV, just like ~95% compliance rate with certain vaccines lead to an essential eradication of certain communicable diseases within a population.
If all the sexually active gay men take this drug and don't get HIV, then HIV will be a disease of straight people and drug users! :tantrum: This article is just homophobic hype. A person is as lightly to get HIV from straight sex or intravenous drug use as gay sex. As far as I'm aware intravenous drug users have a higher risk of getting HIV than anyone else. Being promiscuous and practicing unsafe sex increases the risk of getting HIV and other STD's regardless of whether it's straight or gay sex. If the CDC really wanted to combat HIV with this drug they should be asking for 1 in 4 sexually active men to take this drug! :tantrum:
I'd rather throw money at scientists to try and create a vaccination that people would get once a year to prevent this. It is true, anybody could get HIV, however, it's common knowledge it's easier to receive that specific STD anally. Heterosexual couples aren't as likely to do anal sex as homo-male couples are. I don't think the article is necessarily being homophobic, so-to-speak.
There's an issue with asking people who aren't responsible enough to wear a condom to be responsible about taking this drug though right
I'm sure I saw something somewhere about an injection (or a drug, not sure) that was taken once a month, which hopefully is a step in the right direction though I don't think it was fully developped yet Soooooo true, I don't have much to add but yeah it's basically saying 'guys, we think you're not wearing condoms, and even though we've told you a thousand times that you should, we want you to do this much more arduous thing to achieve a similar purpose' That's a very good point about an excuse not to wear condoms, I think if this were to be effective you'd need a very good information campaign to go with the drug. The last thing that should happen is people have more unsafe sex because they think they're immune somehow. This is only slightly relevant to the issue but I still can't help being dumfounded by the American healthcare system, I don't mean to look down on it but it's just bizarre to me, especially in a situation like this.
Yikes, this stuff costs $1,300 a month, or $15,600 a year...this is more than our rent & utilities. Even with a coupon, I wonder how anyone could afford this. Maybe if you have really, really good insurance???? Still, somebody has to absorb the cost, and this is a pretty steep cost...the real winner here would seem to be the drug company, who stands to rake in millions/billions. I'd like to see some legislation reigning in the price-gouging these places take part in; yes, research is one thing, but there needs to be some kind of humane limit on how much corporate profits hurt people.
I wonder if insurance companies will cover it though? I mean a lot of countries basically require AFAB individuals to get the HPV vaccine and it has reduced the rates of infection.
Actually, no. HIV is more prominent in the gay community and anal sex makes it far easier to contract HIV.
This thread made me curious about the expense. If that really is the only thing keeping you from doing this, you should look at your insurance and the programs through the company. I checked with my insurance and between that and the assistance provided by Gilead anyone on my plan could obtain the drug for free--and I actually have the cheaper of the two plans offered through my employer. I'm not saying anyone should or shouldn't do this but if expense is what is causing you to dismiss the option look into the actual cost first. Almost any significant drug looks impossible if you only look at the retail price quoted. Hardly anyone actually pays that price.
I'm also completely not seeing the reason I need to take any such regimen at all. As long as I ensure my partner is using a condom correctly before I let him penetrate, why do I need to do any of this? *scratches head* ~ Adrienne
I have HIV and have taken Truvada (tenofovir) in the past. The main side effect from this drug is impaired kidney function and that's not terribly common. Compared with things like AZT, d4T and Saquinavir, Truvada is a doddle. The evidence is pretty clear. PrEP works in terms of dramatically reducing the likelihood of contract HIV. I do wonder if it may produce a sense of complacency and lead to an increase in other STDs. Syphilis is nasty and there are highly drug resistant forms of gonorrhoea out there. In fact it's feared that we may soon have untreatable strains of gonorrhoea in the forseeable future.
I dont think Heath Canada has approved it yet. But I don't see the provincial health plans here even partially covering it even if for example your partner has HIV. The cost of this drug is exorbant. Until there's a generic or we get a universal pharma plan here I dont see it worth while.(Universal Pharma would just force down prices. Kinda hard to say no I dont want my company to have access to potentially 35 million customers)
Some people simply don't like condoms or don't care if they get HIV because it's seen as effectively treatable (it's still terrible and therapy is expensive and has side effects). You'll even see people who want to get HIV just to "get it over with." I'm always surprised and disturbed by the number of young gay guys I see who don't like condoms for some odd reason or another or who commonly have bareback sex. It always saddens me.... I feel like there's this whole bareback and sex orgy lifestyle that many people live. There's even sites specifically for hooking up condom free. Anyways, my point is yup it's disturbing and we see these people as irresponsible but many just don't want to use condoms for a reason I won't understand, so, I'm still thinking it would be beneficial for many people and I believe many high risk people could stick to a daily regimen. Personally, I hate taking any new drugs and I'd prefer not to take this one. I'm a litte afraid it could replace condoms, not augment them like it should. I do see people thinking that because they are on prep they can have bareback sex and not worry. Sigh. There are side effects such as kidney failure... Which sounds unpleasant. These aren't caused by condom use. Of course, the risk of HIV for some people is much higher than the potential for side effects. Just depends.