FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > taking prep
taking prep
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A new preventative drug for hiv will now be accessible on the nhs. Great news x
Where is that going to leave the bareback police of fab?  "
Is AIDS the only risk from bareback then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *al2001Man
over a year ago
kildare |
"A new preventative drug for hiv will now be accessible on the nhs. Great news x
Where is that going to leave the bareback police of fab?
Is AIDS the only risk from bareback then?"
It leaves them with that to say
Each to their own |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A poster on a previous prep thread said it can be bought legit online for 40 per month. Named site even
This should be promoted on fab I think"
They missed a zero, it's £400pm |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *al2001Man
over a year ago
kildare |
"A poster on a previous prep thread said it can be bought legit online for 40 per month. Named site even
This should be promoted on fab I think
They missed a zero, it's £400pm"
Sounded too cheap from what I've read about prep cost alright
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *al2001Man
over a year ago
kildare |
"Not 100% effective, but minimises the risk of contracting HIV dramatically. "
From memory it's 97 percent effective
What that actually means I don't know
Does it mean that 3 out of 100 ppl who have bare back sex with infected person get infected? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yeah I'm not a fan of this. Maybe if someone was in a long relationship with someone with it and it was in addition to condoms but as a fail safe for risky sex, absolutely not |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just read it's 92 -99 percent effective
Still don't know exactly what that means"
Means it isnt worth the risk...but im sure....people would have safe sex and use this pill if they where sensible! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Seriously guys, this is very worrying. Have you looked at the (very) real side effects of taking these medications?
There's increasing evidence showing many deaths from HIV are coming from liver failure (from the drugs!) rather than opportunistic infections.
I'm not saying people with HIV shouldn't take the drugs; simply that people shouldn't be using pRep instead of comdoms.
Sorry for the rant, I've literally just finished reading a new paper about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hope they'll prescribe it to people like the non hiv positive guy I was chatting to recently who is married to a hiv positive guy.
"
There are recommendations for exactly this (in some countries) already.
Medication (for HIV) has come such a long way, yet they are pretty much exempt from many usual trial rules (as are vaccines typically) which means serious consideration needs to be given about whether to/when to start treatment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Prep is 80% effective at blocking the spread of the HIV virus if the pills are taken every day (at a cost of £400 per month).
Yes, the court ruling is that any potential funding for this should come from the NHS rather than from local authorities.
Yes, the NHS has appealed the ruling.
But it would still be down to NICE whether they approved the drug to be prescribed by the NHS, even if the court appeal fails.
If someone can't be arsed to use a condom, would they really be arsed to take a pill every day? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ficouldMan
over a year ago
a quandary, could you change my mind? |
"Gonna get shot down for this but....wouldnt that encourage unsafe sex a little bit? And the drug isnt foolproof? So...is this really a good thing?
Yeah I'm not a fan of this. Maybe if someone was in a "long relationship with someone with it and it was in addition to condoms" but as a fail safe for risky sex, absolutely not
"
I can hear the words 'its ok I take prep'
, 'I'll pull out before I cum (thread from the other day '
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gonna get shot down for this but....wouldnt that encourage unsafe sex a little bit? And the drug isnt foolproof? So...is this really a good thing?"
You could make the same arguements for women's contraceptive pills though... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's another great step towards eradication of HIV infection, though the NHS England body is appealing the result. We have all kinds of preventative medicine in the UK that comes from the NHS, where it is shown to be cost effective and highly effective treatment and PReP should be no different, just because it may be more targeted at some groups in our population.
There are two reasons that this drug should be provided: the cost to the NHS is vastly higher for the provision of drugs for HIV infected people, that have to be taken for life. And secondly it is is just humane and common sense.
Cities such as San Francisco have shown that targeted services for HIV positive people and those at risk of infection can lead to real declines in infection rates as well as other health problems.
One of the problems that this country faces is that it's still got some of the legacy of the Victorian mindset, where anything sexual isn't comfortable for some.
Reducing infection rates in target groups also reduces it elsewhere, as the number of people who are exclusively monogamous to one partner or sexual orientation that's not flexible, isn't low. Many people have sexual fluidity and thus targeted reduction improves the nation's health too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gonna get shot down for this but....wouldnt that encourage unsafe sex a little bit? And the drug isnt foolproof? So...is this really a good thing?
You could make the same arguements for women's contraceptive pills though... "
Exactly.
Both pills reduce the worry of life changing events. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"...
If someone can't be arsed to use a condom, would they really be arsed to take a pill every day? "
The same argument exists for all manner of dangers in life, including blood pressure meds preventing more strokes andMyocardial infarction - heart attacks; asthma sufferers use typically their prescribed medication daily, similarly to PReP use conditions. And the list is very long of all the meds that are prescribed, month in and out, some of them preventing deaths and others serious illness, often causing other complications.
We've got the morally self-righteous who are horrified that this medication could be available to gay men, amongst others. That's the nuts and bolts of this issue - it's inflaming the zealot's indignation, their bile rising stratospherically, the puritanical lot not being really that comfortable with gay sex at all. Perhaps they'd prefer gay men to die?
The NHS treatments cost money. Treating HIV infected people costs an inordinate amount more than it would to prevent it, so the financial argument is there to provide it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hope they'll prescribe it to people like the non hiv positive guy I was chatting to recently who is married to a hiv positive guy.
"
I lost a friend and his partner - one infected the other - to AIDS.
Condoms are important for sex but are not 100% protective against many infections, including HIV. Partners of people who are HIV positive should definitely be able to get Truvada. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gonna get shot down for this but....wouldnt that encourage unsafe sex a little bit? And the drug isnt foolproof? So...is this really a good thing?
You could make the same arguements for women's contraceptive pills though...
Exactly.
Both pills reduce the worry of life changing events. "
And bailing out banks might encourage moral hazard but that's a different can of worms. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seriously guys, this is very worrying. Have you looked at the (very) real side effects of taking these medications?
There's increasing evidence showing many deaths from HIV are coming from liver failure (from the drugs!) rather than opportunistic infections.
I'm not saying people with HIV shouldn't take the drugs; simply that people shouldn't be using pRep instead of comdoms.
Sorry for the rant, I've literally just finished reading a new paper about it. "
I agree with what you say about side effects but this medicine is for the uinfected person is it not? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seriously guys, this is very worrying. Have you looked at the (very) real side effects of taking these medications?
There's increasing evidence showing many deaths from HIV are coming from liver failure (from the drugs!) rather than opportunistic infections.
I'm not saying people with HIV shouldn't take the drugs; simply that people shouldn't be using pRep instead of comdoms.
Sorry for the rant, I've literally just finished reading a new paper about it. "
There are greater side effect risks for those people who are HIV positive taking this medication but their health is different to those people who aren't infected, who don't face the same side effect risks: though I'm no expert in this field. I'm interested in your study results though. Thankfully there are high levels of HIV+ treatment reviews. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...
If someone can't be arsed to use a condom, would they really be arsed to take a pill every day?
The same argument exists for all manner of dangers in life, including blood pressure meds preventing more strokes andMyocardial infarction - heart attacks; asthma sufferers use typically their prescribed medication daily, similarly to PReP use conditions. And the list is very long of all the meds that are prescribed, month in and out, some of them preventing deaths and others serious illness, often causing other complications.
We've got the morally self-righteous who are horrified that this medication could be available to gay men, amongst others. That's the nuts and bolts of this issue - it's inflaming the zealot's indignation, their bile rising stratospherically, the puritanical lot not being really that comfortable with gay sex at all. Perhaps they'd prefer gay men to die?
The NHS treatments cost money. Treating HIV infected people costs an inordinate amount more than it would to prevent it, so the financial argument is there to provide it. "
Well, there is truth in that.
At the same time, using a condom might do more to help our struggling NHS. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seriously guys, this is very worrying. Have you looked at the (very) real side effects of taking these medications?
There's increasing evidence showing many deaths from HIV are coming from liver failure (from the drugs!) rather than opportunistic infections.
I'm not saying people with HIV shouldn't take the drugs; simply that people shouldn't be using pRep instead of comdoms.
Sorry for the rant, I've literally just finished reading a new paper about it.
There are greater side effect risks for those people who are HIV positive taking this medication but their health is different to those people who aren't infected, who don't face the same side effect risks: though I'm no expert in this field. I'm interested in your study results though. Thankfully there are high levels of HIV+ treatment reviews. "
I'm confused 
Is this medication intended for use by the infected person or the uinfected person? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"....I agree with what you say about side effects but this medicine is for the uinfected person is it not? "
It is only for uninfected people, in this particular plan.
The same medication is used, as part of treatment programmes for HIV+ people, where different side effect problems are encountered. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seriously guys, this is very worrying. Have you looked at the (very) real side effects of taking these medications?
There's increasing evidence showing many deaths from HIV are coming from liver failure (from the drugs!) rather than opportunistic infections.
I'm not saying people with HIV shouldn't take the drugs; simply that people shouldn't be using pRep instead of comdoms.
Sorry for the rant, I've literally just finished reading a new paper about it.
There are greater side effect risks for those people who are HIV positive taking this medication but their health is different to those people who aren't infected, who don't face the same side effect risks: though I'm no expert in this field. I'm interested in your study results though. Thankfully there are high levels of HIV+ treatment reviews.
I'm confused
Is this medication intended for use by the infected person or the uinfected person? "
It is intended for an uninfected person - once you are infected, you are infected. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"...
At the same time, using a condom might do more to help our struggling NHS."
I think you need to look at the published trial results, which shows that condom use is maintained at the same high levels. This is about a targeted programme, where new HIV infection rates are drastically reduced, based upon a multi-faceted approach. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"....I agree with what you say about side effects but this medicine is for the uinfected person is it not?
It is only for uninfected people, in this particular plan.
The same medication is used, as part of treatment programmes for HIV+ people, where different side effect problems are encountered. "
Thank you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seriously guys, this is very worrying. Have you looked at the (very) real side effects of taking these medications?
There's increasing evidence showing many deaths from HIV are coming from liver failure (from the drugs!) rather than opportunistic infections.
I'm not saying people with HIV shouldn't take the drugs; simply that people shouldn't be using pRep instead of comdoms.
Sorry for the rant, I've literally just finished reading a new paper about it.
There are greater side effect risks for those people who are HIV positive taking this medication but their health is different to those people who aren't infected, who don't face the same side effect risks: though I'm no expert in this field. I'm interested in your study results though. Thankfully there are high levels of HIV+ treatment reviews.
I'm confused
Is this medication intended for use by the infected person or the uinfected person?
It is intended for an uninfected person - once you are infected, you are infected."
Ya I'm aware of that last part thanks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...
At the same time, using a condom might do more to help our struggling NHS.
I think you need to look at the published trial results, which shows that condom use is maintained at the same high levels. This is about a targeted programme, where new HIV infection rates are drastically reduced, based upon a multi-faceted approach."
Hey, I am bi. I am aware of the risks. I am also aware of the acute condition of the NHS.
I know that condoms are not 100% effective but I am also aware that cancer patients cannot get drugs that might help them, too.
£400 per month as opposed to ... how much for a condom? As I said, if someone can't be bothered to use a condom, why would they be bothered to use a pill every morning?
We should encourage all to avoid excessive risk but there is, unfortunately, a time when personal responsibility needs to be taken into account. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"...
At the same time, using a condom might do more to help our struggling NHS.
I think you need to look at the published trial results, which shows that condom use is maintained at the same high levels. This is about a targeted programme, where new HIV infection rates are drastically reduced, based upon a multi-faceted approach.
Hey, I am bi. I am aware of the risks. I am also aware of the acute condition of the NHS.
I know that condoms are not 100% effective but I am also aware that cancer patients cannot get drugs that might help them, too.
£400 per month as opposed to ... how much for a condom? As I said, if someone can't be bothered to use a condom, why would they be bothered to use a pill every morning?
We should encourage all to avoid excessive risk but there is, unfortunately, a time when personal responsibility needs to be taken into account."
You've made an awful lot of assertions there and we don't know who this medication would be available to.
We do know that the price to the NHS of treating HIV+ people is a vast league higher than this treatment to prevent it. And every person infected until it's available will cost the NHS around £400,000
We can choose to have to spend £400,000 or we could instead choose to spend a much smaller amount for preventative treatment.
Many studies have been completed upon it, participants' behaviour, their compliance and infection rates. Lots of speculation, without reading the available literature is simply ignoring what we already know. It's been shown to be such good value for money that American health insurers provide it to their customers, because it's cheaper than if their customers get HIV infection. Looking at money, it's a no brainer.
There are huge numbers of medications that are prescribed every day to prevent more serious illnes and deaths, so it's absolutely not something that's different or new for the NHS. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hav02Man
over a year ago
Glasgow/London |
as everything in the NHS, it boils down to cost-benefit.
PrEP is for those at-risk but not yet exposed. It's equivalent to taking Aspirin to prevent a potential heart attack when you're diabetic and have high cholesterol (both risk factors).
PrEP stops the virus multiplying, but doesn't stop transmission.
I'm not sure though, who decides who should receive it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...
If someone can't be arsed to use a condom, would they really be arsed to take a pill every day?
The same argument exists for all manner of dangers in life, including blood pressure meds preventing more strokes andMyocardial infarction - heart attacks; asthma sufferers use typically their prescribed medication daily, similarly to PReP use conditions. And the list is very long of all the meds that are prescribed, month in and out, some of them preventing deaths and others serious illness, often causing other complications.
We've got the morally self-righteous who are horrified that this medication could be available to gay men, amongst others. That's the nuts and bolts of this issue - it's inflaming the zealot's indignation, their bile rising stratospherically, the puritanical lot not being really that comfortable with gay sex at all. Perhaps they'd prefer gay men to die?
The NHS treatments cost money. Treating HIV infected people costs an inordinate amount more than it would to prevent it, so the financial argument is there to provide it.
Well, there is truth in that.
At the same time, using a condom might do more to help our struggling NHS."
And at the same time you could say that fat people could go for a jog and smokers could kick the habbit. It's about equal treatment really, not implied judgement of one group over another. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Good that the drug is now going to be available to more people, I'm sceptical about how this will be rolled out though, there's not a lot of money floating around (and in many ways it comes down to cold hard cash unfortunately) but I hope those would benefit most receive it, because that is the whole point of the nhs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...
If someone can't be arsed to use a condom, would they really be arsed to take a pill every day?
The same argument exists for all manner of dangers in life, including blood pressure meds preventing more strokes andMyocardial infarction - heart attacks; asthma sufferers use typically their prescribed medication daily, similarly to PReP use conditions. And the list is very long of all the meds that are prescribed, month in and out, some of them preventing deaths and others serious illness, often causing other complications.
We've got the morally self-righteous who are horrified that this medication could be available to gay men, amongst others. That's the nuts and bolts of this issue - it's inflaming the zealot's indignation, their bile rising stratospherically, the puritanical lot not being really that comfortable with gay sex at all. Perhaps they'd prefer gay men to die?
The NHS treatments cost money. Treating HIV infected people costs an inordinate amount more than it would to prevent it, so the financial argument is there to provide it.
Well, there is truth in that.
At the same time, using a condom might do more to help our struggling NHS.
And at the same time you could say that fat people could go for a jog and smokers could kick the habbit. It's about equal treatment really, not implied judgement of one group over another. "
True - but at the same time, I am afraid we are in the position where our NHS has limited resources.
Horrible as it is, it is simply the reality.
There are families of all sorts of patients campaigning for access to expensive drugs.
It is down to those poor feckers at NICE in the end. They don't have an easy job. How do you weigh up life against cost when every decision you make has an affect on others? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hav02Man
over a year ago
Glasgow/London |
"Good that the drug is now going to be available to more people, I'm sceptical about how this will be rolled out though, there's not a lot of money floating around (and in many ways it comes down to cold hard cash unfortunately) but I hope those would benefit most receive it, because that is the whole point of the nhs. "
Nursing bursary has been cut. That should cover them for a year or two  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...
If someone can't be arsed to use a condom, would they really be arsed to take a pill every day?
The same argument exists for all manner of dangers in life, including blood pressure meds preventing more strokes andMyocardial infarction - heart attacks; asthma sufferers use typically their prescribed medication daily, similarly to PReP use conditions. And the list is very long of all the meds that are prescribed, month in and out, some of them preventing deaths and others serious illness, often causing other complications.
We've got the morally self-righteous who are horrified that this medication could be available to gay men, amongst others. That's the nuts and bolts of this issue - it's inflaming the zealot's indignation, their bile rising stratospherically, the puritanical lot not being really that comfortable with gay sex at all. Perhaps they'd prefer gay men to die?
The NHS treatments cost money. Treating HIV infected people costs an inordinate amount more than it would to prevent it, so the financial argument is there to provide it.
Well, there is truth in that.
At the same time, using a condom might do more to help our struggling NHS.
And at the same time you could say that fat people could go for a jog and smokers could kick the habbit. It's about equal treatment really, not implied judgement of one group over another.
True - but at the same time, I am afraid we are in the position where our NHS has limited resources.
Horrible as it is, it is simply the reality.
There are families of all sorts of patients campaigning for access to expensive drugs.
It is down to those poor feckers at NICE in the end. They don't have an easy job. How do you weigh up life against cost when every decision you make has an affect on others?"
Lobbying by special interest groups usually. Bit of public outrage about things can help too.
It's almost like you're suggesting the NHS isn't sustainable in its current form... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...
If someone can't be arsed to use a condom, would they really be arsed to take a pill every day?
The same argument exists for all manner of dangers in life, including blood pressure meds preventing more strokes andMyocardial infarction - heart attacks; asthma sufferers use typically their prescribed medication daily, similarly to PReP use conditions. And the list is very long of all the meds that are prescribed, month in and out, some of them preventing deaths and others serious illness, often causing other complications.
We've got the morally self-righteous who are horrified that this medication could be available to gay men, amongst others. That's the nuts and bolts of this issue - it's inflaming the zealot's indignation, their bile rising stratospherically, the puritanical lot not being really that comfortable with gay sex at all. Perhaps they'd prefer gay men to die?
The NHS treatments cost money. Treating HIV infected people costs an inordinate amount more than it would to prevent it, so the financial argument is there to provide it.
Well, there is truth in that.
At the same time, using a condom might do more to help our struggling NHS.
And at the same time you could say that fat people could go for a jog and smokers could kick the habbit. It's about equal treatment really, not implied judgement of one group over another.
True - but at the same time, I am afraid we are in the position where our NHS has limited resources.
Horrible as it is, it is simply the reality.
There are families of all sorts of patients campaigning for access to expensive drugs.
It is down to those poor feckers at NICE in the end. They don't have an easy job. How do you weigh up life against cost when every decision you make has an affect on others?
Lobbying by special interest groups usually. Bit of public outrage about things can help too.
It's almost like you're suggesting the NHS isn't sustainable in its current form... "
I am not getting into a debate about the sustainability of the NHS.
I rely on it.
I am just suggesting that using a condom at a cost of 50p might be more effective than a £400 per month bill. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...
If someone can't be arsed to use a condom, would they really be arsed to take a pill every day?
The same argument exists for all manner of dangers in life, including blood pressure meds preventing more strokes andMyocardial infarction - heart attacks; asthma sufferers use typically their prescribed medication daily, similarly to PReP use conditions. And the list is very long of all the meds that are prescribed, month in and out, some of them preventing deaths and others serious illness, often causing other complications.
We've got the morally self-righteous who are horrified that this medication could be available to gay men, amongst others. That's the nuts and bolts of this issue - it's inflaming the zealot's indignation, their bile rising stratospherically, the puritanical lot not being really that comfortable with gay sex at all. Perhaps they'd prefer gay men to die?
The NHS treatments cost money. Treating HIV infected people costs an inordinate amount more than it would to prevent it, so the financial argument is there to provide it.
Well, there is truth in that.
At the same time, using a condom might do more to help our struggling NHS.
And at the same time you could say that fat people could go for a jog and smokers could kick the habbit. It's about equal treatment really, not implied judgement of one group over another.
True - but at the same time, I am afraid we are in the position where our NHS has limited resources.
Horrible as it is, it is simply the reality.
There are families of all sorts of patients campaigning for access to expensive drugs.
It is down to those poor feckers at NICE in the end. They don't have an easy job. How do you weigh up life against cost when every decision you make has an affect on others?
Lobbying by special interest groups usually. Bit of public outrage about things can help too.
It's almost like you're suggesting the NHS isn't sustainable in its current form...
I am not getting into a debate about the sustainability of the NHS.
I rely on it.
I am just suggesting that using a condom at a cost of 50p might be more effective than a £400 per month bill."
And I'm suggesting that a jog is cheaper than a gastrict band  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...
If someone can't be arsed to use a condom, would they really be arsed to take a pill every day?
The same argument exists for all manner of dangers in life, including blood pressure meds preventing more strokes andMyocardial infarction - heart attacks; asthma sufferers use typically their prescribed medication daily, similarly to PReP use conditions. And the list is very long of all the meds that are prescribed, month in and out, some of them preventing deaths and others serious illness, often causing other complications.
We've got the morally self-righteous who are horrified that this medication could be available to gay men, amongst others. That's the nuts and bolts of this issue - it's inflaming the zealot's indignation, their bile rising stratospherically, the puritanical lot not being really that comfortable with gay sex at all. Perhaps they'd prefer gay men to die?
The NHS treatments cost money. Treating HIV infected people costs an inordinate amount more than it would to prevent it, so the financial argument is there to provide it.
Well, there is truth in that.
At the same time, using a condom might do more to help our struggling NHS.
And at the same time you could say that fat people could go for a jog and smokers could kick the habbit. It's about equal treatment really, not implied judgement of one group over another.
True - but at the same time, I am afraid we are in the position where our NHS has limited resources.
Horrible as it is, it is simply the reality.
There are families of all sorts of patients campaigning for access to expensive drugs.
It is down to those poor feckers at NICE in the end. They don't have an easy job. How do you weigh up life against cost when every decision you make has an affect on others?
Lobbying by special interest groups usually. Bit of public outrage about things can help too.
It's almost like you're suggesting the NHS isn't sustainable in its current form...
I am not getting into a debate about the sustainability of the NHS.
I rely on it.
I am just suggesting that using a condom at a cost of 50p might be more effective than a £400 per month bill.
And I'm suggesting that a jog is cheaper than a gastrict band "
And I am suggesting that using a relatively cheap condom is cheaper than an expensive pill. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
When the contraceptive pill became available doctors initially refused to give it to in married women even though there was a large problem with unwanted pregnancies.
Effectively they were being told not to have sex or use a condom.
I don't think they're suggesting they give this drug to every gay or bisexual man, just target the high risk people like guys who are married or in a relationship with a hiv positive partner. They may continue with condoms and sleep a little better at night knowing that they have taken an extra precaution to keep them safe.
We assume it to be every woman's right to be able to have sex and not get pregnant.
Surely it's not unreasonable to offer an additional precaution for people in long term relationships? It could be a male female relationship remember too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
By the way, does this £400 per month pill protect against other sexually transmitted diseases? You know, syphilis, gonorrhea, that sort of thing?
I don't know. Any research anyone? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"...
I am just suggesting that using a condom at a cost of 50p might be more effective than a £400 per month bill."
You repeatedly keep using condoms in your argument. I assume that you have not Read the evidence from research results in the literature. This is not about bareback - that discussion subject runs rife in many threads.
PReP is about provision as part of a coordinated programme to stop HIV, using a range of measures that includes condoms and PReP medications.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does anyone know how much more effective the medicine is compared with proper and consistent use of condoms?"
I'm away from my computer atm but the evidence is astounding - but that it's used in conjunction with safer sex measures, including condoms. It's as close to 100% as we presently can get, without abstinence.
Alternative medications for the same benefit are also being trialled, so choice and costs may fall.
A major way to cost reduction is to increase volumes, competition and supplier negotiation. We're behind much of the civilised world atm, including regimes that don't have social healthcare that's not for profit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
All day I've seen stuff about people suggesting condoms instead, condoms break and people get d*unk! For high risk groups particularly gay men who for whatever have unprotected anal sex this drug is very effective and the little research I've seen when taking it it does not seem to increase their risk taking sexual activity either. The cost of giving it as opposed to lifetime HIV treatment is much much lower. While we'd all like to think condoms are nirvana they're not. Personally I see this on a level with contraceptives, a very welcome addition. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does anyone know how much more effective the medicine is compared with proper and consistent use of condoms?
I'm away from my computer atm but the evidence is astounding - but that it's used in conjunction with safer sex measures, including condoms. It's as close to 100% as we presently can get, without abstinence.
Alternative medications for the same benefit are also being trialled, so choice and costs may fall.
A major way to cost reduction is to increase volumes, competition and supplier negotiation. We're behind much of the civilised world atm, including regimes that don't have social healthcare that's not for profit."
I meant compared with not in conjunction with. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does anyone know how much more effective the medicine is compared with proper and consistent use of condoms?
I'm away from my computer atm but the evidence is astounding - but that it's used in conjunction with safer sex measures, including condoms. It's as close to 100% as we presently can get, without abstinence.
Alternative medications for the same benefit are also being trialled, so choice and costs may fall.
A major way to cost reduction is to increase volumes, competition and supplier negotiation. We're behind much of the civilised world atm, including regimes that don't have social healthcare that's not for profit.
I meant compared with not in conjunction with."
Sorry Penelope - I'm squinting on a tiny phone screen atm and meant to say that I couldn't get to the data just now, as I'm away from a computer to be able to get back to the data. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does anyone know how much more effective the medicine is compared with proper and consistent use of condoms?
I'm away from my computer atm but the evidence is astounding - but that it's used in conjunction with safer sex measures, including condoms. It's as close to 100% as we presently can get, without abstinence.
Alternative medications for the same benefit are also being trialled, so choice and costs may fall.
A major way to cost reduction is to increase volumes, competition and supplier negotiation. We're behind much of the civilised world atm, including regimes that don't have social healthcare that's not for profit.
I meant compared with not in conjunction with.
Sorry Penelope - I'm squinting on a tiny phone screen atm and meant to say that I couldn't get to the data just now, as I'm away from a computer to be able to get back to the data. "
Haha no prob  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Ive read a lot of various and sometimes conflicting evidence. Consensus is that PrEP is 84% effective against HIV. Condoms 91% but also against other STIs etc.
Surely using BOTH is the answer? Certainly condoms until the drug is widely available and hopefully at a lower cost. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ive read a lot of various and sometimes conflicting evidence. Consensus is that PrEP is 84% effective against HIV. Condoms 91% but also against other STIs etc.
Surely using BOTH is the answer? Certainly condoms until the drug is widely available and hopefully at a lower cost."
I'm not a fan of governments or their propensity to spend as much money as possible. But healthcare is one of the few things that it's really quite difficult to spend too much money on. The benefits of a healthy workforce are multiplied and the government still picks up the cost of an unhealthy one. £400 a time sounds a lot until you think of the alternatives. I'd also like to think they could get that price down with some bulk purchasing power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Someone above said "once you are infected, you are infected"...yes, that IS true. However, once on Meds it is so very highly higHly unlikely that the virus can be passed on. (see PARTNER study)
So yes, we do still have HIV but we are not infectious.
Re: the cost of PrEP, it is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than HIV Meds.
Re: the side effects. Yes we are essentially guinea pigs as we are only now in a position to quantify people with HIV and on Meds are they are still relatively new and we now have a normal life expectancy. For those taking PrEP, they ARE going to have side effects for a week or so once taking, but largely, like HIV meds, this will pass.
Also, while we have to take HIV Meds for life, those taking PrEP won't. They may meet a partner and have a monogamous relationship.
Kinda bored of having to say this EVERY TIME but they biggest BIGGEST problem we face is people who are positive but DO NOT KNOW. People need to get tested. As well as this news, we need education across the board.
Luckily in Scotland, we are more likely to get PrEP. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Thanks NancyDrew - some sense here again!
In just a few days, whilst there is delay in provision of prep, the average rate of new infections will cost the NHS several hundred million pounds, for new hiv treatment liabilities. So just newly infected people will cost tens of times the annual cost of prep treatment. The budget may be limited but hiv is not going away and every person who becomes infected will cost so much more than what the cost of prep is.
Look at San Francisco, where their active targeting of hiv prevention and treatment has driven new infection rates down to almost unbelievable levels.
Stopping one new infection can also mean that that one individual cannot go on to then infect others. So one person being treated potentially stops many new infections. The cost is incredibly low for this effectiveness level.
Upwards of 90% of infections could be prevented from prep use. Hence why so many countries have or are implementing it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
