1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

General News Healthy gay men urged to take HIV drugs

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by Radioactive Bi, Jul 11, 2014.

  1. Radioactive Bi

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,339
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK Midlands
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
  2. HuskyPup

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    An Igloo in Baltimore, Maryland
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I think it's rather crass.

    These things cost a fortune, and have a LOT of side effects, and are quite hard on the body.

    One of the drugs they're referring to is Truveda, which costs $1,400 per month. (about $17,000 per year. About 20% of Americans don't even earn that much in a year and for a huge number more, that would be at least half of their income.

    That's about $48 PER DAY.

    I can't see how anyone could afford this, or how suddenly, insurance companies could afford to even cover it, if suddenly everyone who had sex with men decided to start taking it. People have said 'assistance is available' but I bet it would run out quickly, if enough people signed on to something this costly.

    The main party to benefit here seems to be the companies who make these drugs.
     
    #2 HuskyPup, Jul 11, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2014
  3. Candace

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2013
    Messages:
    3,819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southeastern U.S.
    Gender:
    Male
    So according to this article, gay are 19 times more likely to contract HIV? "According to the WHO report, men who have sex with men are 19 times more likely to have HIV than the general population."
     
  4. Damien

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,246
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Australia.
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    A few people
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it - especially when the 'fix' has potentially harmful effects on one's health. Best just to practice safe sex, and build a really healthy immune system. Most synthetic drugs have some kind of side-effect that is harmful. I know all to well about Big Pharma and how they try as hard as possible to get as many people as possible on pharmaceutical drugs, whether they really need it or not. It's about MONEY...
    [​IMG]
     
    #4 Damien, Jul 11, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2014
  5. wolf of fire

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2014
    Messages:
    916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    here
    I will not take medication for a condition I do not have, shall I take insulin, have a pacemaker put in, and take medication for high blood pressure while were at it?
     
  6. Aldrick

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Virginia
    This is just stupid. These drugs are a useful tool in the tool belt, but it doesn't magically solve the problem. And of course, we know from our experiences with women taking birth control pills that it's easy to forget.

    Do we really want gay men walking around making decisions like, 'Well, I forgot to take it on Sunday and Monday, but I remembered on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday so I think I probably have enough in my system to be safe, right?'

    These pills can and will save lives. However, nothing is going to replace education, condom usage, and responsible behavior.

    Just because gay men as a whole are highly at risk, does not mean that every gay man is equally at risk.

    The smart approach - the best approach - is to ensure that everyone is educated, make sure condoms are widely available, encourage responsible behavior, and focus in on the individuals who are most at risk.

    Placing every gay man on 'the pill' isn't a real solution. It's an attempt to find a short cut where there isn't one, all the while padding the pockets of drug companies.
     
  7. HuskyPup

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    An Igloo in Baltimore, Maryland
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Agreed. Especially when they cost about $50, per pill. I'm still find that rather mind-boggling.
     
  8. Hexagon

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    8,558
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Earth
    Absolutely not. Condoms reduce the spread of HIV; the drugs are in case of their failure, one way or another. It's utterly ridiculous to firstly expect people in most places to afford the drugs, and secondly to expect them to undergo negative health consequences in order to prevent something that could be done just as well with a piece of latex. And frankly, anyone capable and willing to heed this advice probably already uses condoms.
     
  9. HuskyPup

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    An Igloo in Baltimore, Maryland
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    More interesting things I've discovered:

    The CEO of the company that makes Truveda, John C Martin, saw a total compensation last year of $43.19 million, and a 5-Year Compensation of $214.92 million, according to Forbes, making him the 10th most highly paid CEO.

    I think it's foolhardy of the WHO to suggest people take drugs that basically stuff money into the pockets of greedy pharmaceutical racketeers, without pressuring them to settle for a bit less cash in order to make things more affordable, so that more lives might be saved in places where actual AIDS cases are rampant.
     
  10. DMark69

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cheyenne WY
    My husband is a Pharmacy Technician, so I have an idea what these drugs cost. Here in Wyoming the state will pay for this medication if you are infected. I don't think anyone would pay for it if you did not have the disease. I think the idea is stupid, safer sex and condom use is more effective and much cheaper.
     
  11. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Like those above, I don't agree with this suggestion.

    First, we already have condoms which have helped reduce the risk of contracting HIV dramatically. And if a guy can't remember to use a condom, will he remember to take his pill as needed?

    Also will the drug create a culture that thinks "bareback is just fine now that we have this drug prescribed to everyone?" Indeed, these drugs have, I've heard, made some guys say: "It really doesn't matter any more. If I catch HIV, well, they've got drugs!" I'm not a medical expert, but I believe the best course of action is to stop the virus from getting into the body in the first place, and the cheap condom does just that.

    Also I have concerns about the long range effects of doing the drug approach.

    The only people who truly benefit are those who make the drugs.

    I can't speak about WHO, because I don't know their policies. This situation is the only one in recent memory I've known about. But with health agencies in general, I have wondered sometimes if Corporate Medicine doesn't have an undue influence.
     
  12. LiquidSwords

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Hmm I would say the people who would have the presence of mind to take the drugs would likely be the same people who already use condoms so. There'd probably also be a real danger of people using the drugs instead of condoms, which would be trouble too.

    I'd probably like to reserve judgement until they complete the trials though.

    I'm not sure who is funding the trials in the UK, but if it's the NHS then we can assume they'd be prepared to pay for it if it turned out to be a success.
     
  13. HuskyPup

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    An Igloo in Baltimore, Maryland
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I was wondering about that as well.

    Also, if it became widely prescribed, it seems like it would make it more likely for the virus to mutate into drug resistant strains.

    But then, they could invent another pill, maybe for $100 a pop, next time around.
     
  14. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    One issue that does merit some consideration is what is the rate of HIV infections among those who do actively work to prevent it from happening (via safer sex, and, ideally, choice of partner, etc) VS the total rate among men who have sex with men.

    I ask this because there, frankly, men out there who don't seem to bother with safer sex for whatever reason. Indeed, I have it on good authority that there are even some men who purposely try to contract HIV. Reason: welfare benefits. I even heard that in some circles there is even a party on the evening one tries to contract HIV.

    Meanwhile, men who do take care might not wipe out the risk completely. But with condoms, drug regimens in case of some one time accidental problem, etc, the HIV risk is probably pretty low. And without spending fortune on a pill each year.
     
  15. LiquidSwords

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    I think that's quite cynical and not quite fair on the people who are suggesting/ piloting this. Not an expert on WHO either but as they're a UN body I don't think it's fair to say they're principally, if at all, representing corporate interests, and that probably goes to some extent for the NHS/ UK gov too.
     
  16. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    If they can invent another pill. Another reason I'm uncomfortable with this drug idea is the possibility of it losing effectiveness to some degree.

    I don't know if HIV is a problem this way, but with some diseases and people, you do reach a point where a drug that worked stops working.

    Also worth noting: I believe as things are now that I have heard of people with HIV who have not responded well to those drugs.

    Bottom line: as I said before, the best choice is a condom. Save the miracle drugs for the people who have contracted HIV.
     
  17. HuskyPup

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    An Igloo in Baltimore, Maryland
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Well, when the guy who runs the company makes about $45 million a year, and charges $50 a pill, I think one can afford to be just a touch cynical. =p

    I'm not sure how the WHO was roped into this idea, but it is kind of fishy.
     
  18. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Yes, it's quite cynical. And, as I said before, I don't really know the WHO's track record well enough. But it certainly is a question for me. I do feel that some government agencies do get influenced.
     
  19. LiquidSwords

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Yes, a little bit of cynicism is probably healthy here I suppose :confused:

    I don't think it's an idea without any merit though and if it can be independently proven to lower HIV rates then I wouldn't necessarily be against it.
     
  20. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Intellectually, I guess I wonder about whether the drug approach would lower HIV rates.

    But one problem I really see is the price tag. Someone has to pay it. From what I read above, it's beyond the means of the average person. It also would be a huge hit for insurance or government agencies. Which raises questions about justifying it, particularly in light that condoms may well work as well. And even if they don't, do the drugs work many times better to justify the many times the price? Also a question: what about straight people? They can catch HIV, too. Do we try to put everyone on these drugs?

    A lot of interesting questions. A lot potential for huge debate, even fights.

    The only thing I see as sure: if the drugs got mandated for health insurance coverage in the US for preventing contracting HIV, there would be some conservative lawsuit backlash like what happened with Hobby Lobby over the contraceptive issue. "We don't want to pay no money so those :***: can :***: each other up the :***:"
     
    #20 BMC77, Jul 11, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2014