Surprised that this astounding news is not on the boards. HIV negative men who take the HIV drug Truvada faithfully have a 90% chance of avoiding HIV infection. Throw a condom in with that and HIV worries can be gone forever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/health/research/24aids.html?_r=1&hp

Surprised that this astounding news is not on the boards. HIV negative men who take the HIV drug Truvada faithfully have a 90% chance of avoiding HIV infection. Throw a condom in with that and HIV worries can be gone forever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/health/research/24aids.html?_r=1&hp

I thought HIV drugs are very expensive? Because of that, does this seem very practical to prevent HIV?

Surprised that this astounding news is not on the boards. HIV negative men who take the HIV drug Truvada faithfully have a 90% chance of avoiding HIV infection. Throw a condom in with that and HIV worries can be gone forever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/health/research/24aids.html?_r=1&hp

Somebody has to be first. Congrats.

Great article. Thanks. The next question is: at $12000 - $14000 a year who will be able for afford it as daily prophylatic measure? Some but few I think. If few, then it wont make much difference will it? If priced more like Viagra then that would be revolutionary.

The bigger the bill, the bigger the thrill. Oops, that's what they say at strip clubs.

Here I mean to say the bigger the market, the lower the price as volume discounts make it more affordable. It does scare me that guys are going to get so complacent about HIV that they will walk right into another epidemic, perhaps with a new virus we haven't heard of yet. But with all these guys jacking off in front of their webcams, they may not have to worry about STDs!

Here I mean to say the bigger the market, the lower the price as volume discounts make it more affordable.

Yeah, I expected that to happen with Viagra too, and he more so with Levitra and Cialis coming on to provide competition. However, I am unaware of any signigicant price reductions due to volume usage or competition. It seems the drug companies have established a target price that they feel is marketable and instead of lower prices through competition, they spend those 'lost price reduction dollars' on advertising.

Great article. Thanks. The next question is: at $12000 - $14000 a year who will be able for afford it as daily prophylatic measure? Some but few I think. If few, then it wont make much difference will it? If priced more like Viagra then that would be revolutionary.

A google search turned up this website that shows Truvada costs $867.99 per month:

http://aids.about.com/od/hivmedicationfactsheets/a/drugcost.htm

Me thinks condoms are cheaper and without the side effects.

Surprised that this astounding news is not on the boards. HIV negative men who take the HIV drug Truvada faithfully have a 90% chance of avoiding HIV infection. Throw a condom in with that and HIV worries can be gone forever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/health/research/24aids.html?_r=1&hp

I read a different article on this early this morning. The percentages were not quite that high in the story I read. In fact they were very clear to point out that the drug itself can reduce the transfer of HIV but the at about 67%. I tried to locate the article but cannot at the moment. However, they too mentioned with a condom and the drug your safety level rises even higher.

Anyway, all news like this is good.

My theory is that this will cause a huge increase in non-HIV sexually transmitted infections.

Somehow, I don't think the time will ever come when we can get up in the morning, take a pill, and be "protected" from any and all diseases. I feel there will always be a need for personal responsibility.

I realize that there are "other" points to this discussion and I am not trying to "preach" to anyone about anything.

Best regards,

RA1

Surprised that this astounding news is not on the boards. HIV negative men who take the HIV drug Truvada faithfully have a 90% chance of avoiding HIV infection. Throw a condom in with that and HIV worries can be gone forever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/health/research/24aids.html?_r=1&hp

I don't believe that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a proper way of protecting yourself from HIV (except in some very rare cases). Condoms remain the only reliable protection against HIV and other STDs.

I think that non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) should not be abused by gay men looking to have unprotected sex.

Wrap it up, boys.

I agree Steven, but I suspect a lot of guys will use it as an excuse to go bareback.

I know many of my female friends stop making their hooks ups wear rubbers when they go on birth control pills and I suspect a lot of guys will have the same attitude toward condoms as soon as there is a 9 out of 10 chance they can tell themselves it's "safe."

I agree Steven, but I suspect a lot of guys will use it as an excuse to go bareback.

What other justification is there for incurring the not insignificant expense and disciplined daily regimen required? It is clearly an attempt to remove the risk from risky behavior. I suspect the researchers and drug companies would grant that. What else justifies the expense and resource allocation for the research? It sure beats throwing caution to the wind that all too many do on a regular basis.

I agree I would not be comfortable playing Russian Roulette with a 10% chance of losing. I would hope this is a step toward a regimen that ultimately moves the risk rate to well under 1% if a perfect prophylaxis or cure continues to elude us.

What other justification is there for incurring the not insignificant expense and disciplined daily regimen required? It is clearly an attempt to remove the risk from risky behavior. I suspect the researchers and drug companies would grant that. What else justifies the expense and resource allocation for the research? It sure beats throwing caution to the wind that all too many do on a regular basis.

I agree I would not be comfortable playing Russian Roulette with a 10% chance of losing. I would hope this is a step toward a regimen that ultimately moves the risk rate to well under 1% if a perfect prophylaxis or cure continues to elude us.

At roughly a thousand bucks a month, I will never have to wonder about the 10%. Think of the condoms that could buy!

Imagine, however, if you were an escort who was charging $150 an hour for protected sex.

Now, imagine this drug exists and you could, in theory, offer barebacking to prospective clients for $300 or more an hour.

At that point the expense of the drug starts to make financial sense.

BBB-

That is a little too much imagination for me. Nothing is or likely ever will be that fool proof. I know at least two people who have the flu right now and both of them got flu shots earlier this year.

I understand the economic point you are making but there are way too many other negative points that bear on this issue.

Best regards,

RA1

But there will always be some greedy people who like money so much they don't care about the risk.

True. Always have been and always will be. I don't see how, as some suggest, even a 90% drug will change that one way or the other.

Best regards,

RA1

My theory is that this will cause a huge increase in non-HIV sexually transmitted infections.

At the quoted price, I dont think it will make any difference at all. Only the well off will be able to afford this as a lifestyle change, and then only some of them will be up for the 10% risk factor.

The price is the obstacle. I don't think the 10 percent risk factor is much of one considering how many dudes bareback anyway and tell themselves they are "playing safe" because the dude they met three hours ago on Manhunt promised them his negative.