LGBT News Offer PreP to all gay men?

This better not go on the NHS, condoms are there for a reason. Why should my tax go to a bunch of idiots who cannot use condoms?

 

^I get what you're saying Section 18 but it's still a drug that can add additional protection. I get it, some people who use PrEP think they can go on and have unprotected sex without worry but all I can say is "well they're idiots". You can't control what other people do. I for one would like to be able to add an extra layer of protection on top of a condom. I realise you're worried it'll raise the amount of bareback and we'll be back to the 80s...but again if people want to be stupid then that's their prerogative. Though I will agree with you, I still am concerned about what I just said, more unprotected sex could be possible which wouldn't be good.

 

Hmm is it weird that I find it slightly insultive? I can't believe people still seeing HIV/AIDS as a gay disease still this day.

HIV/AIDS is disease of careless idiots, it is disease of people who disregard human life... not their but the ones they stole from other people... In here probably biggest danger lies in married heterosexual guys whose wives doesn't aware their infidelity... Those people doesn't deserve a pill, they deserve a bullet to their heads.

However HIV doesn't stand in one place it travels and endanger innocents so any way to stop it from spreading, hurting children is okay in my book. They can take all my monies for it... still it stings... there are more important people need that treatmants than couple of men/women who could act irresponsibily.

Sorry if this sounds harsh but thinking all those AIDS victim children makes my blood pressure rise. Will just drop this reminder which makes me cry everytime I watch it.

[YOUTUBE]LRIm5ufzMd4[/YOUTUBE]

 

They should do a thorough financial evaluation and see if providing PrEP for most people is cheaper than treating HIV in a few people.

On another note, I'm a bit afraid to have sex now. 1 in 8 gay men in London has HIV? It says that's higher than other places, but damn. That's absurd! I don't think I'd even touch another man with statistics like that. I don't even want to know what it is here now.

 

It could work especially for the queens out there who refuse to use any protection. But, I'd also like to know why the meds are so expensive and what are the long term side effects of taking anti-hid meds.

 

To be honest mate, the more I learn about the gay community, the more I dislike it. Which is sad, as I've been seriously questioning my orientation recently. Too many problems within the gay community relating to drug abuse, alcohol abuse, STD/STI infection rates, psychological problems etc.

---------- Post added 25th Feb 2015 at 11:58 AM ----------

I don't think many people truly believe that it is just a gay disease, however the statistics speak for themselves. Homosexuals make up a majority of new HIV infections despite being a vast minority of the population.

 

Dude you can be whatever type of gay guy you like, acknowledging your sexuality doesn't mean you'll suddenly become these things.. I think you'll find the majority of gay guys aren't std riddled drug abusing basket cases and nor do you have to be if you decide you're lgbt

On the financial argument the article makes it quite clear that this would save money so

 

In addition to what PatrickUK said - there's the issue of "herd immunity." Regardless of what you think about condoms and those who, for whatever reason, fail to use them, the fact is - an effective vaccine or HIV-suppressing drug will cause the virus to die out. New cases would be sharply curtailed (if not eliminated).

I'd gladly give up judging guys who are promiscuous and/or have unsafe sex if, in return, we can eradicate HIV. No one deserves to die like that, even if you don't agree with their morals and/or life choices.

 

I would be surprised by this libel of ignorance regarding "my tax dollars" and public health...

But I'm an American.

 

Also regarding cost, Truvada currently costs £360/month as a PrEP. For every 13 high risk men treated for a year, one case of HIV was prevented. The cost to the NHS of an HIV positive diagnosis over a lifetime averages at about £350,000. So it's a decision between spending £56k on prevention, or £350k on management.

Plus Truvada goes off patent in mid-2017, so the cost of providing it should fall dramatically after that.

 

I think they have to weigh up all the pros and cons, yes.

And if they do introduce this for healthy gay men I would really hope it was provided with thorough education. I think too many would see it as an excuse to have unprotected sex, or think the drug made them somehow superhuman.

HIV is just one STD for starters, the drug won't protect against everything, and even on the drug there is a chance of transmission. Condoms should always be the first line of defence and this really does need to be hammered into some people.

It is scary yes. Its probably worse in London due to being such a densely populated and metropolitan place - with all those apps available sex is just a click away and so risks are a consequence of that.

I get the fear though. Now its probably wise for two people who want to have sex together to just go and get tested (its cheap and easy enough). Its just a shame that might not be seen as romantic or a sign of a lack of trust, but personally I think if you love someone, you would care about their health enough to make sure you are all good.

---------- Post added 1st Mar 2015 at 07:16 AM ----------

I guess aswell, provided people correctly see this as one small part of prevention and not the whole package then this might actually act to counter and reduce the incidence of HIV.

Whilst we can't cure the disease as of yet, we do have the power to "quarantine" it and reduce its spread which this might do.

 

Well they are expensive for the same reason any new drug is expensive. Pharmaceutical companies pump millions or in some cases billions into drug development, the high prices are their way of clawing back that money and turning a tidy profit in the limited time they have until their patent runs out (20 years usually). After this point anyone can manufacture the goods and the prices drop rapidly.

 

Yes, HIV disproportionately affects the gay male population; however, to all those who stigmatize HIV+ gay men as "wreckless idiots" it's interesting to consider that gay men have to be ever-vigilant to use condoms 100% of the time (or else you're an "idiot") where as the heterosexual population is certainly not held to the standard of "condoms 100% of the time" because if a female is on birth control, the heterosexual couple may omit the condom. If you were to compare the statistics of condom usage among sexually active heterosexual men vs. sexually active gay men, it would be interesting and I have an inclination that condom usage and protective practices, to include discussions about safe sex, is much higher among men who have sex with men vs men who have sex with women.

The comparison to birth control is a valid argument because just as people say they do not want their tax money going to gay men to prevent HIV, couldn't one equally argue they do not want their tax money to pay for the birth control pill for women...I mean after all the pill just allows women to engage in more worry-free sex and she might also omit (and likely does) the condom from her practice?

 

I think the response "why do this? People should be using condoms" is completely awful in moral terms.

As a trans person who really likes receptive anal intercourse, I'm well-informed of the risks, and I take precautions accordingly. But I don't just take precautions for myself. I take these precautions for public safety in general.

That's why, when I went to get HIV tested, the person who tested me, being queer-positive, said I should get vaccinated for Hepatitis A and B as well as HPV, I said "sure, sign me up."

Sure, it cost like $60 out of pocket, but in my opinion, that's a small price to pay for me protecting other people.

There's a danger in viewing HIV as an individualized problem, where "those faggots who take it in the ass bareback" are seen as deserving whatever happens to them. I don't think that's fair; in fact it's very cruel. But more than that, it doesn't characterize the problem correctly. HIV is a public health issue. It's not the "slut virus."

~ Adrienne

 

And another comment to those who love to complain about their tax dollars and health:

I work in public health and that is what my degree is in and I can tell you that this argument comes up a lot about sexual practices but if you discuss other scenarios the tune changes real quick such as the huge proportion of people who smoke and end up with all the associated diseases such as COPD, lung cancer, other respiratory and cardiovascular issues because they decided to use tobacco. Also in discussion of medical ethics usually comes up a scenario of an alcoholic who needs a liver transplant and whether or not he is "deserving" and most people in health care say, "Absolutely! Health care should not be about the peoples notions of "deserving." Once you start teasing out demographics, you could easily relate just about all medical diagnoses and injuries to the decisions people make, with the exception of genetic disorders. Medical conditions, viruses, diseases all need to be prevented and or treated, not time wasted on people trying to find a moral platform to make judgments. Playing contact sports is risky, some players take precautions (helmets, pads), but in the end there is still risk and incidents occur.

 

Well surely there must be a cut off point? Isn't money better spent on individuals who cannot help that they have illnesses? I.e genetic disorders.

Why should money be spent on irresponsible individuals who CHOOSE to go out and behave like an idiot? Whether that is having unprotected sex with strangers, or going out and getting drunk every weekend and ending up in A and E.

I'm not saying that these people shouldn't receive treatment, I'm just saying that they shouldn't get it on the NHS. They should pay for it themselves.

 

And if they are poor, die. Naturally.

Surely you can understand why I'm not sympathetic to your view.

I feel the need to point out that where public health is concerned, a calculus including the stupidity of others is not really an option. Here in the United States, we have people with no training in medicine, virology, or statistics, who feel quite qualified to say vaccinations are too risky for their children.

As a result of the explosion of this movement, isolated incidents of "individual stupidity" are now affecting other people, because previously eradicated diseases are now coming back. We require vaccination for entry into public schools for this reason: other people's stupidity should not be allowed to affect us.

Similarly, HIV has now affected a lot of other people who are not stupid. For example, men who have good reasons to trust one another have transmitted HIV because their partners of many many years were unfaithful, one time.

 

Yes, i see your point.
Then what do we do? Just allow people to abuse the NHS with their stupid behaviour?

Would you rather spend money treating a man who has a genetic disorder or a man who got a disease because he went out every weekend taking strangers cum up his arse?

Maybe I'm too young or stupid or whatever. But it just really annoys me that there are people in the UK who cannot receive life saving cancer treatments or life saving medicine because there isn't enough money left in the pot. We should be saving money in certain areas and redistributing it to others.