Excellent! This I think is probably the best news that could befall not only the LGBT community but all races and walks of life. Personally I think this is a much more important issue than equal marriage for the gay community.
Just because your mind can only cope with one thing at a time don’t think the rest of us can’t consider a number of equality and their importance.
of course mean equality ‘issues’
My mind can cope with plenty of things Jock, but previous newspaper reports from other sources had suggested these drugs might not be recommended for use by the advisory panels- I’m glad, relieved and grateful that sense prevailed and the drugs have been passed. I think LIFE is a more important issue than marriage, that’s just me.
Tell that to the people in the LGBT community that being beaten, murdered, tortured etc because of Equality. Only when We have Equality can we effectively fight discrimination…. Marriage Equality is included.
|For as long as we have differences between equality for Heterosexual and the LGBTQI community we expect discrimination and bigotry.
Life is indeed most important… and so too is quality of life whether through equality, health etc.
Really? Ever heard of multi-tasking? I take it you can only do one thing at a time? There are some gay couples in the world where they have no equality and no rights and living with HIV. Marriage is the universally recognised form of union between two consenting adults and with it comes a host of rights and privileges.
“Whatever happens, condoms will continue to be the bedrock of HIV prevention as the easiest, cheapest and most effective way to stop HIV. If you’re worried that you’ve been at risk, get tested and look after your health.”
Well said Sir Nick, everybody take note.
Yes, Nick Pratridge did make the above comment recently, and taken out of context it would appear to be the first time this millennia that he has taken such a conclusive stance on condom use as the main weapon against HIV.
Okay, he can’t resist inserting the “get tested” reference, as seems mandatory these days whenever an HIV sector bigwig is discussing HIV prevention.
But on closer scrutiny this speech isn’t all it appears to be.
For it came at the end of a rather longer one, and I quote:-
“We have to take every new opportunity to improve the effectiveness of HIV prevention and the spread of this epidemic. There is no single method of prevention that can on its own stop the transmission of HIV [eh?!?!]. Adding Truvada to our existing range of prevention programmes, including safer sex campaigns, using condoms and regular HIV testing is an exciting prospect.
“But we need to know if people at highest risk [all gay men, presumably?] are prepared to take a pill every day and…
whether there would be an increase in risk-taking behaviour…”
Mr Pratridge makes not one reference to the potentially harmful, indeed lethal, side effects incumbent with use of these synthetic toxins, nor the fact that dosing yourself up on HIV drugs when you do not have the virus in your body will weaken the efficacy of such drugs when you may really need them (i.e. if and when you DO become infected).
No, all this speech reveals in full is Pratridge’s continued toadying to the drugs cartel:- a pharma stooge with known ties into Glaxo that have been documented going as far back as when he assumed the mantle of THT Chief Executive in 1991.
How dare he go on record as saying there is no one surefire way to prevent HIV when condoms always were, long ago, considered the only effective option.
My how that message has been betrayed and blurred as pill-popping is now being pushed and gay men deceived and indoctrinated into believing that intoxicating themselves is the new way forward.
@ Samuel “[all gay men, presumably?]” what a selfish self centered idiot you are – HIV IS NOT ONLY A GAY PROBLEM – this is where you entirely miss the point again & again. What about couples wishing to conceive naturally where one of the couple is postive. What about the women that have no control whether Condoms are used or not & thier husband /partner who is +ve will not use them. What about the women who are not allowed to use condoms because of culture or fear of physical abuse. What about the high risk gay man, who for what ever reason continues to engage in high risk sexual activity?
If you read about PrEP in the UK you will discover there is more to this approach than your timy mind can cope with. This article has never said that Truvada will be given to anyone who wants it, but in your usual way you have interpreted it in the most negative & headline grabbing way you can. You are totally ignorant of life outside your little perfect bubble.
What you fail to understand Samuel or do not wish to understand is that Truvada HAS NOT BEEN LICENSED in the UK for use as PrEP. Why are you getting so anxiety riven & in the process spouting your usual crap about THT. I beleive it will be some time before Truvada will be licensed in the UK for PrEP. The British HIV Association who you have previously poured scorn on want to carry out a UK based study, particularly with gay men, as they are not convinced about the available evidence. Unlike you I always carefully absorb information from the US in relation to HIV – yet you often quote the US as the leading light in all things HIV.
Treatment as prevention / PrEP are approaches that are very valuable in the fight against HIV – but we know that you prefer people at high risk to be marginalised & not have appropriate interventions targetted at them – shame on you for wanting to deny choice to people where mainstream interventions have failed / continue to fail. You disgust me!
Of course HIV is not only a gay problem, W6, but what exactly are you trying to say here?
For all male contributors to PN, HIV IS a potentially life-debilitating and curtailing threat that affects all, neg and pos.
Are you saying because HIV affects other sub groups also, this somehow detracts from the still serious threat to us?
This is a gay forum, W6. The clue’s in the name, “Pink” News.
Your attempt to trivialise this fact and use smoke and mirrors to lessen the threat of HIV is treacherous in the extreme.
If you are so concerned with other subgroups, jolly well go and troll on their forums where you will no doubt get short shrift there also.
On this board alone you have had to pathetically and desperately attempt to defend your preposterous worshipping of pharma when they’re the LAST industry we should be turning to for prevention strategies as their mantra is “bottom line before health”.
You are fast becoming a lone voice in the wilderness on PN forums.
In case you hadn’t noticed Marriage Equality is the hot topic at the moment, there are very few PN readers interested in this topic, & let’s face it why would they bother reading this comment page, because most readers know the routine – you spout total tosh & I counter your ill informed narrow, subverted mind.
No one us really interested in what you have to say on HIV as it is so predictable. I get great satisfaction correcting your drivel & will continue to do so.
I hope you are not spending too much time putting together your complaint about my criminal activities, best be sure it is factual and in no way libellous or defamatory in any way, or you will be the one needing the use if a very good solicitor.
Well I for one , I place marriage equality well below the fight against HIV.
Marriage equality concerns a lot of gay people, particularly the militantly-oriented on a zealous crusade for equality in absolutely even area of life.
Now I mix with many, many gay people in my professional and social life, and gay marriage is seldom discussed.
When the subject DOES rear its head it is usually in passing and someone is keen to deflect the subject to more pressing issues:- such as house prices and the latest club du jour.
Whereas HIV concerns EVERY gay man, period.
A look through this very thread shows that to be the case, with many commentators coming out to correct your cosy delusions.
It’s no longer just you and I here debating, W6.
The community’s now rising up and saying enough to the preposterous direction HIV prevention is taking:- away from prevention and towards procedures that profit the corporations and which will, in time, riddle us with kidney defects, heart disease…
I can agree that HIV should concern gay men, BUT it doesn’t, it is well down on the list of priorities.
If “the community” is rising up as you put it where us the evidence for this, other than in your mind.
I am always happy to engage in informed debate, & if you read my comments on HIV treatment problems I have been very clear about my views on patient / clinician interface & the importance of empowering people to get the very best care & not put up with drug side effects.
In your zeal to discredit me you filter this information out because it does not suit your argument. I know my subject area Samuel & where I don’t, I enjoy the challenge of further learning. I now know more about hydronephrosis, which is due to structural changes in the kidney, usually induced by blockage, congenital defects or injury. The HIV drug Atazanavir can crystallise & cause blockage, but this is pure speculation on my part, it could possibly explain the example provided in this thread.
You may wish to appear a popular commentator on ths comment page Samuel – after all we know how important the reds & greens are to you.
I am confident that my postings are scientifically accurate, & apart from the remarks I make about you, are factually correct. Not once have you been able to prove that I have posted inaccurate, poorly researched information. As I have said before, I do not contribute here to massage my popularity ratings, someone has to provide balance to your postings.
@W6Bloke – how dare you claim to speak on behalf of gay men to declare that HIV is no longer a major issue for us? When did it ever stop being a major issue? Everyone in this debate has sPoken sense except for you who seems to be on a real crusade to diminish the very malign grip that HIV continues to hold over us.
I do not know if SamuelB is right when he says you are a shill who lurks on these boards, but evidently the HIV virus couldn’t wish for a more enthusiastic apologist, and you are without a doubt the ultimate cheerleader for the pharmaceutical lobby. Disgraceful behaviour.
Nick Partridge is not a clinician & as such dose not influence Treatment Guidelines in the UK. This is the job of the British HIV Association & British Association of Sexual Health & HIV – why would he make a comment on the pharmacology of Truvada – you really show you are out of your depth as you consistently demonstrate you have no idea about the organisations involved in HIV treatment & care in the UK. Guess what Samuel – THT are just a charitable organisation who have a small but important role to play in the grand scheme of things.
You make totally outlandish comments about HIV treatment “potentially harmful, indeed lethal, side effects incumbent with use of these synthetic toxins” I wonder which HIV denialist website you have taken this quote from, because this is how you come across as a treatment denialist. The very fact that there are individuals who contracted HIV in the 1980′s is proof that treatment is effective & continues to improve at a very rapid pace. Get real fool!
Things that make yer go ‘hmmmm’
Yet another ‘preventative’ medicine to be taken every day for the rest of your life by people who are not actually ill…
I also think its introduction is muddying the safe sex message waters.
Its not entirely clear from the article what level of protection it actually offers – nor what the side effects of taking it on a regular basis are. I’d like to see Pink News do an update on the article to include that information before I’m able to make any kind of proper judgement.
Truvada is not likely to be licensed in the UK as PrEP, one of the main reasons being that organisations like BHIVA association are not convinced by the current evidence available.
There have been small studies carried out aimed at individuals who are at high risk of becoming infected. Personally I would only think PrEP should be used with individuals who despite repeated counselling continue to engage in high risk sexual activities.
I would also be concerned about wide spread drug resistance to Truvada as it is currently the main NRTI backbone drug used in treatment and is generally well tolerated.
Oops – sorry I meant to give you a thumbs up – but the bloody confusing nature of having the ‘yes’ on the left and the ‘no’ on the right got the better of me and I accidentally did a thumbs down…
The only situation I could think of which makes some degree of medical sense is, ironically, not that of men but of women.
There has been much research focused on women in African countries who may not be empowered to make the choice to use condoms during sex with their partners. Were the drug to be cleared in terms of safety it may make sense to offer those women that pill in order to protect themselves.
You make a very valid point with regard to the use or PrEP & Treatment as Prevention methods for the wider population. Couples who wish to conceive naturally & not have to rely on sperm washing or atrificial insemination methods could use a combination of both Truvada as PrEP in the negative partner and full ARV treatment for the positive partner.
It is true to say that there are situations in the UK where women are not able to insist on condoms being used, therefore Truvada would indeed provide a high degree of protection for them. The safety of the drugs has a very good track record. Tenofovir has been licensed since 2001 / Emtricitabine licensed since 2003. Tenofovir has been linked to kidney problems & bone density changes in various studies, & as these are known potential problems, kidney function & bone profile blood testsd are regularly monitored.
I guess the one area that couldalso proove difficult is the routine follow up of individuals taking Truvada – interesting debate
I did click thumbs up but it gave you a thumbs down >>
Your right. Both of you have very valid points.
Condoms are a must have, but if this can helf furter reduce risk still and theres no side effects or risk of immunity or even causig a super HIV strand. Them im all in favour.
But there are serious worres with any antibiotic with the disease adapting an immunity mutating into a more virrilent strand of itself.
But sadly it could be decades before we see the research to confirm or deny such a thing.
You are also correct in your analysis Adam88. HIV is a tricky virus when it comes to mutations developing, that is why HIV treatment has to use at least 3 different drugs to prevent mutations emerging. HIV relpicates very rapidly when not treated & the level of genetic “mistakes” or mutations is very high – this is one of the reasons why a functional cure has not been developed.
The British HIV Association who advise on HIV drugs are not convinced by the available evidence about the effacacy of MSM using PrEP. I have my reservations about drug resistance developing because of poor adherence. Truvada is an important “backbone” to any current HIV treatment regimen, so the resistance is a very important factor.
Treatment for HIV in the UK is very different from the US; we take a much more measured approach & anyone receiving treatment is very closely monitored. The monitoring of PrEP users also is a concern for me. In certain circumstances PrEP is a valuable tool in prevention.
“We all know that condom use is not & will never be 100 adopted by MSM.”
Hmm, now why is that?
Because after years of HIV prevention [sic] campaigns imploring gay men to wear condoms – but devoid of the critical, underlying reasons of what the consequences could be if they DON’T – the message is no longer heard!
Without a strong deterrent factor, condom use will never be 100% adopted by gay men.
But then you suggest that if all gay men were tested for HIV, somehow that would stem its spread because those knowing they had the virus would change their sexual behaviour.
There are thousands of pos men today penetrating bareback, with pos and neg partners alike. Why would testing change that?
And what about those who test neg?
Absent of a graphic campaign that spells out the potential pitfalls of unsafe sex, they’ll be back on the scene taking calculated risks and playing Russian roulette with their health.
The call to testing is a shamefully blatant diversion, period.
One of the main reasons why condoms are not consistently used by MSM is that people make choices about the type of sex they wish to engage in – this I believe is called “human nature”. Unlike you Samuel many of us are fallible, we make mistakes, we are not in control of the situation when it comes to sex, we lack confidence to say no, or are under the influence of alcohol /drugs – I am sure there are many other reasons why condoms are not used 100% of the time. There is also the issue of sex education in schools & also that not all MSM are on the scene & are fully aware of how to avoid HIV / other STI’s.
Once again you miss the point about the importance of testing, you simply do not get it, yet you say you consistently test yourself. If you are not convinced by the effect of regular testing then why do you do it??? It is you that implies that testing is the only tool in the box used to prevent HIV, this simply is not the case as shown by this article.
I really also take issue about your contempt for other gay men in the way you describe them, referring to the use of social media like Grindr in your usual superior tone. It is interesting that you suggest that diagnosed pos men are responsible for the forward transmission of HIV – over 50% of new cases come from undiagnosed pos men (the ones who think they are negative & cannot be bothered to test). So we have a situation where those on meds who are uninfectious are stigmatised by you yet the so called negative gay men are the villains in the piece. This clearly shows your ignorance & your irrational fear about HIV.
From your ramblings it is clear to me that you don’t give a hoot about other gay men, as you are derogatory in your tone when describing them – YOU are only interested in yourself, so worried that you are going to get HIV that it is the number one issue for you. Guess what Samuel it aint the same for everyone else – incase you hadn’t noticed Equality in Marriage……..
…is the hot topic, not HIV. You only need to look at the level of interest in the two topics on PN to realise that for many gay men HIV is not on their radar. This is frustrating for those of us who are genuinely interested in public health & prevention, but for you it is just a personal crusade because of your own fears of becoming infected.
My hard line approach is that MSM need to test once a year without fail, not only to protect thier own health but the health of others, why is this so difficult? If someone is unclear about thier HIV status what does that say about them? MSM have to accept that the HIV horse bolted out of the stable 3 decades ago when the virus became concentrated in the MSM population. If they value thier health then they need to use condoms consistently & test at least annually. Why is that so hard to acheive do you think, given all the information that is easily accessible on the net & on social media sites. It’s a no brainer yet you can’t see it!
W6, I’m not against the principle of testing at all:- it makes sense for those who want to know their status and be in control of their situation, and to dispense the relevant drugs to those who have unwittingly carried the virus for a while and whose immune systems are compromised.
What I AM against is the call to testing masquerading as HIV prevention when it is nothing of the kind, and soaking up significant HIV prevention funds at the expense of the safe/safer sex message.
There has not been one clear, decent HIV prevention message aimed at gay men in their press nor at outreach initiatives for months and months now.
It is all “Test, test, test!!!!!”
This is deception and it is deplorable.
Testing is not the solution:- it has its merits and may prompt some behavioural changes among the recipients of a pos diagnosis, but generally it will be business as usual.
We need HIV prevention that serves as a deterrent.
Solution:- why not promote testing alongside HIV campaigns?
You views on testing are totally at odds with current thinking when you say testing is masquerading as prevention – Clinicians, Epidemiologists, HIV Charities, Health Authorities the world over see regular testing as the cornerstone of effective prevention. I really do not understand why you do not understand the concept.
There is very little appetite for your style of prevention campaigns, social media & online resources is the way forward in these times of austerity as such campaigns reach a wider audience & can be easily evaluated. You are entitled to your view but it is at odds with the effective management of any infection. You will remain frustrated I beleive!
By the term “current thinking”, you surely refer to the thinking of the PC militia who manage HIV in the Western world, and not the mainstream consensus.
You may mix in those circles, W6, but I know when talking to the average gay man on main street that they despair of the shocking lack, nay total absence, of HIV prevention messages today.
Have you no pity for the youngsters emerging onto the scene today? We know they are not taught about HIV at schools, but they aren’t getting the message from their own brethren either.
These are the same innocents you are impairing to get tested every year in a climate devoid of decent HIV prevention initiatives:- and no doubt the same youngsters you are gloatingly rubbing your heads together over at the thought of dispensing endless pills and services to.
This indifference has even been discussed in the Lords.
People know what is going on:- wait for the sh*t to hit the fan one day very soon…
The “average” gay man on the street in my experience is very uninterested in HIV / Sexual health – let alone what style of prevention campaign is being run. You claim to be represent said gay men yet you portray them inh a very derogatory way, which is a constant theme running through your postings. .
I do not take your narrrow view that HIV is only a big problem for gay men, so please do not try & portray me as some heartless individual. HIV is a problem for everyone & I have plenty of day to day evidence to back that up. HIV should not be portrayed as a gay disease. A recent poll conducted by Dr Christian Jesson suggests that most students think HIV only occurs in gay men & drug addicts – this is dreadful, yet you want to perpetuate this rediculous situation.
A measured, factual, educational National Campaign is urgently required, but the Government is not prepared to spend the money, & it is they who spend millions on ARV’s rather than investing in educacation for all.
I am a very practical person Samuel I live in the REAL world & all the constraints that puts upon us as individuals. You seem to live in a dream world where you claim your way of thinking is the populist view – I do not beleive you represent the populist view. By all means take an anti-capitalist view – but this view is clouding your judgement on the here & now, particularly in relation to HIV prevention.
You want to use stigma, scaremongering about HIV meds & out of date perceptions about living with HIV as the heart of any campaign – I will never accept this, nor would ever accept it prior to my diagnosis. You always target me on PN because you know my status & I am optimisitc about my future & other’s future who live with HIV. I have at many points answered your questions, yet you never answer anything direct, you deflect & go off in a tangent every time an HIV related story appears here. You are just runningg scared, just admit it, come clean about your irrational fear of HIV
It should be pointed out that this refers to the US only and may not be approved for use in the UK by NICE the crowd in the NHS that decides who lives and dies. They already turned down the new drug that helps men with advanced prostate cancer.
NICE do not currently make decisions relating to HIV drugs but I am sure this will change in the future.
and before everyone jumps on the “I want these drugs” bandwagon… remember that ALL HIV meds have side-effects, some violent, some deadly.
most cause serious liver damage.
I doubt taking this drug for any extended period of time will be entirely “risk free”. Why would a healthy person take a drug that can have serious side-effects for the rest of their life when common-sense would be just as effective, if not more so, at keeping you healthy?
“and before everyone jumps on the “I want these drugs” bandwagon… remember that ALL HIV meds have side-effects, some violent, some deadly”
Not sure which modern drugs you are referring to Mikey, but Truvada has a very good safety record, is well tolerated and has very few if any side effects. Whist the Tenofovir in Truvada has been linked to Kidney toxicity and possible changes to bone mineral density, anyone taking these meds are closely monitored in the UK.
Our HIV services in the UK provide much better outcomes than seen in the US. To say HIV meds are violent and deadly is just scaremongering and is simply not true.
The STATS from the laboratories Dish are specific but more then just that in the body is being brewed & processed…
Like AZT in it’s beginning use was very toxic for many in a short period of time taken daily…
Maybe consider every other day, to, once a week, could be just as effective.
Playing NUMBERS by all sides of interest in the conception of this drug to market is a factor to this conversation.
The individuals that take this product or any other drug will show the difference.
Sadly some will pay.
Well said, Mikey and Gregory!
W6 lives in a dream world, and wants everybody to believe being tanked up with a regimen of toxic drugs for the rest of your life is a picnic in the park.
For many people it damn well isn’t, and for a few the side effects are horrendous.
Acquiring HIV is a lottery.
It will effect different people in different ways, and similarly different HIV meds will affect different people in different ways.
You won’t know how they will affect you until you are prescribed them, so why take that risk in the first place?
There has been a clear shift of momentum away from the impactful HIV campaigns of 20 years ago to today where we find the relentless pushing of pharma’s drugs on both neg and pos gay men.
When you consider that most HIV charities receive funding from the pharmas, you begin to sniff a bait and switch scam occurring before our very eyes, and we are the bait…
Give it a rest Samuel , you don’t know what you are talking about, so you are not really in a position to comment as you have shown in other recent threads relating to HIV.
This drug is very safe, is well tolerated by the majority of people who take it, and cannot be compared with AZT when it was first introduced, we know that AZT was given at highly toxic quantities which resulted in very serious health problems.
In the UK we are very well monitored for any changes and early intervention can solve most problems. We all know your views on HIV charities as you bring up the same tired lines all the time – think we are all bored of your far Right ideology.
I think I am much better placed to comment on HIV treat,ent Samuel as I actually take it every day without fail, in the morning with my breakfast.
I also have access to over 1000 people up and down the country who have been taking meds for many years and those who are just starting. I think I can clearly claim to know my subject area, whereas you clearly are only interested in rubbishing the great advances that have taken place in HIV care and treatment.
Let’s hope you never have to take HIV drugs eh? And don’t be overconfident that you will never get HIV – did you use a condom last time you sucked a guy off???? Did the guy know he was positive, did he have another STI that was also undiagnosed??? We can never be sure!
Hi Gregory, AZT was toxic as they were overdosing people on the medication every four hours at first without understanding properly how the drug works to fight HIV. Interestingly there are drugs being tested which you might take once a month or once weekly as scientists have a better understanding of how to fight HIV. People still need to take the drugs properly still and if the pills are toxic for some then they will have the pills changed. No point prescribing meds that no one will take. Unfortunately AZT users didn’t have a choice.
So the only way to prevent HIV is to dispense endless toxic pharma drugs?!
We’ve the HIV sector imploring gay men to get tested so that those infected with the virus can quickly be drugged up (just how does THAT prevent HIV?)…
We have PEP, an unproven cocktail of toxins that the pharmas want you to believe will prevent HIV taking hold if taken within 72 hours of exposure, and which HIV charities recommend if you are preparing for a weekend of unsafe sex…
Where are the studies to show that Truvada will keep neg men uninfected with HIV?
They’re clearly saying use this instead of condoms, and the likelihood of you being infected with HIV will only be decreased!
Of course Pratridge has come out in support of Truvada.
He’s been talking up pharma’s drugs since the early 1990s when he was taking backhanders from Glaxo for dispensing AZT to pos Londoners, killing many of them in the process.
That made front page headlines. Why not the same level of outrage today?
Yawn yawn same old same old Samuel – you really do not have a clue do you? Read up on PrEP studies and treatment as prevention, you might learn something!
That said you don’t often read the articles that you comment on as was clearly evident in the 56 Dean Street article.
Ditto, amid today’s prominent newspaper headlines:-
GSK AVOIDED CORPORATION TAX BILL OF £34m IN 2011
Like the pharmaceutical cartel’s interests which it places head and shoulders of gay men’s health, THT under Pratridge’s two decade ten sure has been corrupted to the core.
In another thread, W6 argues that THT is right to own a string of prestigious buildings in prime central London because the interest they accrue in rents, etc., can be used at times when it cannot secure funding from the government or enough from its fundraisers to do its work properly.
My question is HOW on earth did ever THT ever get into the position of acquiring these multi-million pound premises when it cries that the government won’t cough up enough funding for prevention?
THT is a registered charity. Charities should NEVER become dependent on government handouts, and THT has no need to be but is so greedy and corrupt it sits on assets and cash piles worth tens of millions while neglecting their duty to…
properly safeguard gay men’s health, and have over two decades shamefully presided over epidemic rates of HIV infection because they refuse to loosen their grip on the HIV prevention budget and instead focus all their efforts on servicing the needs of the infected.
The two roles, as I have outlined before, are mutually incompatible because servicing the needs of pos men must, understandably, be done without judgement.
But the PC zealots of THT et al take this to absurd levels by demanding that neither must the virus itself be stigmatised, and so prevention campaigns are not allowed to tell the truth about what a lifetime of meds, and all the potentially horrible consequences that go with them – including a curtailed life space of around 15 years on average – imply.
Rather like the idiot police who refused to speak out against gang paedophilia because they were terrified of being called racists, THT & co. refuse to deter people from acquiring HIV by pointing out the very real…
cost – to both the individual and society as a whole – of HIV infection.
Can anyone on here honestly give a sensible and rational reason why an outfit that has set itself up as the dominant supplier of HIV services in Europe also insists on controlling and squandering the HIV prevention budget without pointing to the clear conflict of interests this scenario presents?
I certainly can’t, and if ordinary gay men would just distract themselves for one moment from their Grindr App and began to think through this ridiculous and unjust scenario, perhaps something would be done about it.
“Sir Nick Pratridge, I award you the OBE for services to Big Pharma…”
Stick to the article, Samuel GSK do not make Truvada or it’s component parts, as always a load of unrelated tosh from the resident “village idiot”
I did not claim GSK make Truvada, but this new scam to dispense toxic drugs to those NOT infected with HIV is all part of the same charade that has seen the pharmas profit ever more from this horrible disease that nobody is working on preventing.
W6, answer this one question:-
Whose wealth and power is threatened by access to HIV prevention programmes that serve as an effective deterrent to unsafe sexual behaviour, and who has the motive to fund and ingratiate itself with a culture that ensures such programmes do not reach those at greatest risk?
If you are the serious independent researcher you claim to be, W6, surely you should follow the cardinal rule of investigative journalism?
Namely, that instead of accepting everything those with the motive to suppress such information WANT you to hear – particularly when the story blatantly makes no sense at all, on both logical and compassionate grounds – you do what all reputable investigative journalists do:-
YOU FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!
If an individual wished to take PrEP in the form of Truvada then that is THEIR decision & who are you to take the moral highground to suggest that individuals should not have this choice available to them. I have clearly stated that in my opnion Truvada will not yet be licensed for use as PrEP in the UK- which part of that do you not understand. I am not convinced of the benefits of PrEP without close monitoring in relation to adherence & proper ongoing behaviour change counselling.
I do not recal ever stating I was an indpendant researcher – this is your perception. You have made many many assumptions about me for the time I have been contributing here, yet you have never met me. All I can say is that you have a very creative mind, which sadly is very warped.
Not is there any other “title” you would like to bestow upon me (we’ve had pharma & HIV schill & now an investigative journalist) what you don’t know you assume & fabricate to fit your wierd world view -you are an odd person
“………so that those infected with the virus can quickly be drugged up (just how does THAT prevent HIV?)…
” this just shows how thick you are Samuel. We all know that condom use is not & will never be 100 adopted by MSM. Testing helps to ensure those who have the virus know their status & can therefore make behaviour changes. Beleive me when an individual knows they are infectious it does focus the mind. The perception of high / low risk sexual activities are often influenced by many variables. For instance oral sex is generally seen as low risk BUT if an individual is in the acute infection phase the infection risk can see a 26 fold increase in the risk of transmission. Add in another STI such as chlamydia (which often shows no symptoms) then you have the perfect conditions for HIV transmission to potentially take place during oral sex. If there is poor oral hygiene this adds another layer of risk.
Treatment is now indicated as a preventative measure, in the UK, US & Australia
Yay for W6_bloke! Treatment as Prevention is going to be huge. In California, they are using the prevention budget to reduce the numbers of HIV positive men with detectable viral loads. If men have had undetectable viral loads for months and no other infections, the chances of them passing on HIV is dramatically decreased. It is very rare for someone with a viral load of under 1,000 copies to infect another so a viral load of 8 copies or less in your blood is definitely going to have an effect. Test regularly, use a condom & if you get HIV reduce your viral load to undetectable quickly…
Totally agree with you Tom in terms of treatment as prevention, as you can read from some comments here there is a huge level of ignorance & political posturing amongst some commentators. Thanks for acknowledging the value or an undetectable viral load.
Aw, nice to see W6 has his own little fan club going on to make him feel not completely isolated from everyone else on this board.
Yay for W6, I mean Tom…
What a total to$$er you are Samuel – now you have been shown to hyjack important threads (Re Body Positive NW) & been told in no uncertain terms that your intervention is not helpful, you come back here to belittle the comments that others make, just because they happen to agree with my views.
Most of your views come from the website “Life or Meth” or older comments on Pink News – I am able to google the same topics you are Samuel – most of your words are identical to those of Gary Leigh. You make no attempt to change the phrasing it is almost as if you have copied & pasted whole sentences from his website & published ramblings.
You are a complete fake & are here just to troll………………..you have shown you care about no one else but yourself with your disgracful unwanted postings on the BPNW story – shame on you, quite frankly you make me sick. You are a disgussting excuse of a person, no wonder you have been bullied all your life, you deserve all you get!
In my opinion there is no such thing as a ‘safe’ drug. All drugs can be misused, even asprin, and there are, of course the side effects, especially with the powerful drugs that have been developed to combat HIV/AIDS. Prevention will always be better than cure, or in the case of HIV/AIDS, a lifetime of treatment so not practicing safe sex is not an option.
The battle against AIDS as resulted in great medical advances being made. Unfortunately the ‘holy grail’ of a cure for AIDS as not yet been found. If such a breakthrough is made it will not only be bad news for the AIDS virus but every other virus from the common cold to the likes of hepatitis, flu, rabies and ebola. Because of this research into HIV/AIDS must continue.
I would agree that any drug (which is essentially a chemical) can be used in an unsafe way. My real concern is that there is a perception perpetuated by some commentators that HIV drugs are somehow more problematic than other drugs that are used to treat long term illnesses. You use the term “powerful” in relation to HIV medications, are they more “powerful” than an anti-depressant or anti-psychotic drug? I am not privy to such analysis. Someone I know has had to take a lifetime of anti-epilepsy drugs which have caused severe liver damage, yet she acknowledges that they have given her quality of life by preventing constant fitting.
We have to take a balanced approach to ANY medication as there will be a trade off between POSSIBLE side effects & improved quality of life. I can refer to 100′s of stories where individuals starting HIV treatment heve felt so much better within weeks of taking it, despite short term side effects, which often resolve.
Well said, GingerlyColors, but one thing we can be sure of whilst millions more are poured into finding a cure for all these maladies is…a cure will never be found, or if it is it will be suppressed from public knowledge.
Those decisions are made by big corporations with shareholders to appease, and for whom a good trading year is one where they can report that drugs to treat such and such have increased by so much per cent.
Don’t forget these same corporations diagnose normal conditions as maladies and develop yet more drugs which they claim will treat the malady and which then require a prescription for other drugs to treat complications arising from said drug.
150 years ago many of the conditions suffered today did not exist, pre-industrial revolution when people still ate off the land and treatments for ailments were naturally derived.
The fact is that pharmaceutical drugs are the number one killer of human beings worldwide today.
Our healthcare has DEVOLVED in that time!
Are we to take it that you have never taken any drug in your life Samuel & that you do not intend taking any medications in the future – for any illness??? Please do not expect everyone to follow your rather purile, overly cautious, & warped views.
What I am unable to grasp is why the drugs used to treat HIV are any different to those used for cancer, heart disease, depression & many other long term conditions. It seems that there are those who wish to perpetuate the myth that HIV meds are somehow more toxic than other meds THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE. Medications are chemicals but guess what; the liver is designed to break down these chemicals into harmless metabolities. Many over the counter pain killers are very liver / kidney toxic if not used incorrectly. The liver deals with many ingested chemicals every day, most of which come from our food & toxins produced by ingested bacteria.
Medication help millions of people to have a good quality of life & can significantly extend life
W6, I think you’re a bit evangelical about HIV medications. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. I’ve been positive for 13 years and have had at least 3 of these medications give me atrocious side effects. One has crippled me permanently. All anti-virals are extremely toxic by their very nature. To say they’re not toxic, is, well, naive. I’m not saying that positive people shouldn’t take these medications (when they’re good and ready and without undue pressure from any interest groups), but what I am saying is that it is utterly stupid to go around offering these drugs to otherwise perfectly healthy human beings.
Apart from the fact that Truvada does come with a set of side effects, the effects of it’s long term usage are as yet unknown. As were the long term effects of the ‘d’ drugs that crippled so many positive people with peripheral neuropathy.
As for your comment of “no longer the case” for the toxicity of the medications, I think you’ve been at the big pharma cool-aid if you actually believe that. Most of the medications have been on the market for close to a decade and I can assure you that they have not become “less toxic” over the years. They are just as toxic as they were when they first came out. They have not reduced the chemical compounds in them that make them effective.
The other issue of course is that adherence for positive people is hard enough. Trying to get every day healthy individuals to adhere to taking a pill that could possibly make them sick is going to be an impossible mission. I know you don’t think you’d have much of a problem, but not every one is a super hero like you!
There is the real possibility of creating a super variant of HIV that is resistant to this drug. We only have to look at the abuse of antibiotics to see what happened there.
Richard, as for using Truvada as PrEP, if you read my comments I think it is fair to say that I have expressed some of the concerns you have, particularly regarding the development of drug resistance, so on that we agree. We should also remember that this decision has been made in the US & as I have also highlighted in my postings I do not beleive that Truvada will be licensed in the UK for such a use until further studies have been completed with high risk MSM. Again I thought I was very clear on my concerns about monitoring & adherence.
My view with regard to PrEP is that in certain situations it may be helpful. I do not see a situation where Truvada is given to anyone where there is not a real need. If it is a choice between PrEP & high risk individuals remaining HIV negative then those individuals should be given the option of having PrEP. You may have interpreted the use of Truvada as being available to anyone who wants it – I do not believe this will the case.
I have never denied that the early drugs were toxic & caused serious problems, including lipodystrophy, liver failure, peripheral neuropathy – mistakes were made, many of these drugs were used at very high doses, & in some cases accelerated the demise of many of the individuals who were the first to use them. I make no apology about being optimistic about modern treatments, particularly when there is so much more evidence available that untreated HIV itself causes many serious problems such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone metabolism, increased risk of stroke etc.
I can only go on my experience which comes from reading, research, the experience of my friends, (many of which have been living with HIV for 20+ yrs), my involvement in a UK based community forum, peer support groups, attending patient involvement groups & BHIVA meetings on treatment guidelines. I beleive this provides me with very varied opinions upon which I am able to form my own opinions.
I have never said that no drugs are without side effects, but I do not agree that modern HIV meds are more toxic than any other treatment for long term conditions, I have highlighted this with my example of anti epilepsy drugs contributing to liver damage. The long term side effects of any ingested chemical is only proven over time. Drugs like AZT, the “D” drugs & early PI’s showed their level of toxicity relatively early on, but there were no alternatives at that time. I have highligthed that Truvada is not without side effects, but these should be closely monitoried. I am of the view that if there are ongoing problems with a particular combo then this should be discussed with the clinic & a change made. Sadly for some it is trial & error.
There are drugs I am not in favour of Efavirenz & Nevirapine are 2 examples where there are better alternatives. Some people prefer Atripla but put up with side effects because it is one pill a day as they value convenience of taking 1 pill.
You describe me as being “evangelistic” about meds – I think you will find that when one is trying to debate with the likes of Samuel B there is no room for discussing the detailed points about HIV treatment. He has a very black & white view & he portrays modern treatment as being much worst than it actually is -as a result I mirror his zeal to dicredit treatment & care advances & porivde a very optimisitc point of view, which is much closer to the truth than his negative spin.
Perhaps you have far more experience than I do, perhaps you speak to more people about thier treatment, perhaps you are better read than I & have access to more information – all I can go on is my experience gleaned from others & of course my own experience, which admittedly is only 4 years. I consider myseld lucky to have newer modern drugs avilable to me & I am optimistic about the future -I really do not see the problem with this.
I beleive I am better placed than Samuel B to debate about HIV treatment.
There are drugs that have come to market in the last year for instance – Rilpivirine, the newest NNRTI has a low does of 25mg, this has to be an improvement. My own combination contains Etravirine which was licensed in 2008, only 4 years ago. Darunavir was licenced 6 years ago. These are second generation meds that in my experience & that of others that take them to be very tolerable. As a friend of mine often says his Darunavir / Ritonavir / Truvada combo is the best he has had because he gets no side effects. He was diagnosed some 15 yrs ago so I think he is very well placed to provide an opinion.
Others on the forum I use confirm the same view – treatment today is much better than it was, less toxic & more tolerable. There are new drugs in the pipeline; Tenofovir prodrug that is targetted to only work in Lymphocyte cells & cause less potential kidney toxicity. Ritonavir boosting could soon be replaced by Cobicistat which has less side effects. I see no reason not to be optimisitc.
Very well said, Richard.
But as a paid up shill for the HIV sector and, by association, the pharma lobby, it is W6′s duty to man all HIV-related boards 24/7 to counter any negative criticism aimed at the failure of HIV prevention in this country and, indeed, the only solution now being offered to prevention HIV:- toxic, as you say, meds.
This board alone shows how people are not going to be easily led by this deception.
Just as the media this week has covered the ridiculous assertion – no doubt sponsored by Big Pharma – that all over-50s should be dispensed highly toxic statins that are proven to act counter to all the benefits they are supposed to alleviate, so we are now being duped into thinking popping poisons is the way to stay HIV free.
This is a pharma marketing scam but it is turning into one big public sham as people are saying no to endless drugging and mercury-tainted vaccinations.
W6 sets out his defence of the, ahem, safety of toxic meds on the absurd basis that he is doing fine, therefore so will everyone else.
That simply is not the case.
Different combinations of different drugs will act in different says for different people.
Lack of adherence to certain meds mean that others have no choice but to take others that may be more toxic to their bodies in the long-run but which keep their t-cell count up in the short-term.
It is a complete lottery which W6 aims to deceive unwitting gay men into believing needless regimented pill popping will be a picnic in the park.
It won’t and it is about time he was censured for espousing such highly irresponsible and potentially life-threatening advice on these boards.
Have you not been able to think of any other lines other than the tired ones you constantly repeat t Samuel?
At least now you have given some context to your crusade about medications being toxic – I am heartened to know that you think the same of all drug interventions. This may be fine for you Samuel but there are millions of individuals who have seen thier quality of life improve as a result of taking medications. It would seem that you rather scaremonger & perpetuate myths rather than recognise the benefits of the various drugs that are used the world over to treat so much disease & illness and extend life.
I am sure your anti capitalist views do not extend to your high end retail emporium, where in my experience it is the job of the sales assistant to wring as many £ up on the cash registers / Hr as possible – don’t be such a hipocrite Samuel, your products probably have huge margins on them & who is getting the fat cat salary & pension for your daily grind, your superiors!!!!
I do not consider ARV’s to be any more toxic than any other medication available to treat many other long term conditions – we know your view on medications in general so I do not feel you can provide a reasoned view on the benefits of drug interventions.
You will also note Samuel that I clearly state I form my opinions from a variety of sources – are over 1000 other individuals also wrong in their experiences of ARV’s? Do you discredit all these other individuals – are my friends somehow so influenced by me to make such statements. Many newly diagnosed individuals want to start meds sooner rather than later because they want to become less infectious & feel more confident when it comes to sex, are all these people wrong in their veiws? Why are you so right & everyone else wrong? Arrogance & misplaced irrational fear thats what it is about with you.
I look forward to PN censuring my comments – they are much more accurate than the bile you spout about community testing!
I’ve been following the trials and discussions on PreP for a while, with some interest. I’m a neg guy in an LTR with a poz guy, and so in one of the groups being considered as possibly suitable for this (and likely to have very high adherence).
But the side effects of Truvada can be distressing (both my partner and his HIV+ mother suffer sleep disturbances and vivid, scary and upsetting dreams from it, for example). On the whole, I think that (if offered) I wouldn’t take it, as long as my partners viral load remains “undetectable” at regular tests. We always use condoms, so it would only be an additional layer of safety for me.
However, I think that if it can be shown to be effective, it would be good to offer it to high-risk people assessed as having an excellent chance of good adherence – that probably rules out those with a disregard for regular condom use anyway, as I don’t see they’d be more likely to be regular about taking a drug.
@Nick Sorry that your partner & his mother are having side effects, with my expert patient & treatment advocate hat on, could I ask what the other drug that is taken along with Truvada? The side effects you describe sound like those associated with Efavirenz (Sustiva) which is also present in Atripla. I would recommend that these side effects should be brought to the attention of the clinicians involved & possible alternatives discussed. These side effects are particularly debilitating & there is a 20% drop out rate of people taking Efavirenz based treatment because of them.
I think you make very important points about PrEP – given that your partner is on meds once he has an undetectable VL there would be no benefit for you to take PrEP as long as you still use condoms. Hopefully the proposed UK study will provide further insight into how effective Truvada will be within the MSM group.
Your partner / his mother may want to check out http://www.myhiv.co.uk for additional info & support.
W6, you have no expert standing or doctorate qualification whatsoever to be dispensing advice on toxic compounds on a free and open board such as this.
I will be filing a complaint with the webmaster as you are advising people on here to take certain drugs over others, neither of which are known to be completely safe to use, and for some people could have an extremely adverse effect, for which you would then be held liable for procuring their use in the event of a casualty.
You are stepping well above your mark here in your zeal to portray toxic pharma meds as wonder panaceas that all gay men should be popping.
Lol you are a total idiot Samuel the only advice I have offered it for the individuals is to discuss the side effects with their clinician and ask for a review if treatment. Why is that wrong in your opinion??? Please explain where I have offered advice on alternative drugs???
I’ve read it & re-read it back, quite frankly Samuel I am unable to arrive at the conclusions you have drawn from my posting in response to Nick. You can interpret things in your very odd way (perhaps you do not understand plain English), but I think it is up to others to decide what constitutes advice & if as you say I have stepped above the mark. There is not even a hint that I have some way implied that an individual should change thier HIV combination.
What you have shown is that you are unable to process simple written English & interpret the words as they are actually intended & you accuse me of selectivly filtering information. Did you happen to work for Tony Blair when he was PM, as he was always spinning information until it could not be recognised from the original way it was written / expressed.
You really are some piece of work – if my mind worked like yours I would be screaming libel & deformation of character by now. It is you that is the disgrace!!!!
It’s defamation, dear.
But then, if you are going to use big words…
The link I have quoted is incorrect -here is the correct one:
Hoisted by your own petard methinks, W6!!!
Answer the questions I have posed to you – oh silly me, we know you never stick to the point or answer direct questions……………..I would take some time to read the various pages on said website YOU might even learn something.
This is dangerous on too many levels to even say. It’s just asking for trouble. Condoms and abstinence are the only ways to prevent HIV transmission….end of!
the drug does have side effects: nausea, vomiting, dizziness, loss of appetite and diarrhea, liver and kidney toxicity and loss of bone density, it’s also been ‘fingered’ in unexplained Heart Attacks, no one is willing to fund research on this.
Where us the research to suggest Truvada has been “fingered” in relation to heart attacks, is this proven or speculative?
“these drugs are highly toxic, it says so on the bottles”
Unless I am mistaken the label on my bottle of Truvada does not say these drugs are highly toxic, neither does the label on my bottle of Etravirine – perhaps I get a special supply so that I am deliberately kept half informed about ARV’s by my HIV Consultant. But wait it also seems that other +ve people get their meds from THT, that well known pharmacy where volunteers push these highly toxic drugs like smarties! (Cue Samuel B with his line about PEP being pushed like soap powder)
I am sorry to take the p*** here but this is what your justification sounds like.
Where is the research to prove these drugs cause dangerous conditions? Probably buried under the same patio that Big Pharma buries all such evidence. That where!!!
you could try asking Clint waters a positive gay man who died of a heart attack at the age of 31, these drugs are highly toxic, it says so on the bottles, do stop spouting half-informed opinions about haart, you’ll cost someone their life your own blinkered POV about haart is dangerous and a half-story at best. no research will be done as ‘heart attack’ on a death cert is less stigmatised than HIV morbidity’, do take the blinkers off and stop spouting badly reasoned PR from THT, et al (all of whom get money from pushing this line)
Are you not able to have a decent debate about such important matters LongtermPWA?? I know of the death of Clint, I have read about it, he would NOT have just been taking Truvada as part of his medication as you well know, If you care to read all my postings then you will know that I take in many varied views on HIV treatment, not just the blinkered view you describe. You are the one who will cost someone their life with your scaremongering about ARV’s.
It is always unfortunate when someone dies as a result of HIV infection, but it is very unfair to quote the death of this young man & then label all ARV’s to be toxic. If there is solid research then I am happy to form an opinion based on said research, not the tragic death of one young man.
If you want to deny ARV’s give many 1000′s of people good quality of life then that is your perogative, just as it is mine to be optimistic. If you want to debate take the emotion out of your argument & come to the table with hard evidence!
Who is going to fund this research, Longterm PWA, when there is so much money vested in prescribing people pharma’s synthetic compounds and keeping them on these toxins for life?
Only the big corporations have the money to research these things, but they are not going to research something that would run counter to their share holders’ demands, would they?
Wasn’t Glaxo just the latest of many of the big guns to recently be fined millions for suppressing information about the damaging effects of certain of its drugs?
Isn’t that exactly what the tobacco industry did in the 50′s when it discovered that smoking can lead to cancer but buried the information, and has been sued for billions for doing so?
Follow the money trail.
And DON’t believe a word W6 says in advocation of these life-debilitating drugs.
It is all very well for W6 to childishly and insanely red arrow all and sunder who dares question his trilling and singing up of HIV drugs, but thank God others are now vocalising their anger at his downright irresponsible behaviour, which has languished on these boards unquestioned for far too long now.
I am in the process of filing a complaint to a major authority of how W6 has been openly dispensing medical advice and recommending certain drugs on these HIV-related boards for some months now, which is a criminal offence without the suitable medical qualifications.
Thank God we have laws here which prohibit the lavish, glamourously photo-shopped advertising of synthetic toxins that have led to the mass drugging of Americans.
But even in the US, a one page ad of a bright-eyed, rock climbing individual can be accompanied by three-four pages of dense text outlining the symptoms and complications likely to arise from them.
And W6 still has the impudence to liken them to Smarties!
Well, there isn’t going to BE any research, it would only cost them money and reparations, I gave up taking that toxic crap 3 years ago after it ‘emerged’ that function in one of my kidneys’ had dropped to 30%, Six months after stopping these meds, it had risen to 63%, I have the data from the mag3 (renograms), U&E’s, LFT’s and two highly qualified nephrologists) I’m quite well, a huge change from constantly crapping myself, bad sleep, and organ damage.
@ Longterm PWA
You know as well as I do that kidney function is monitored at least annually for individuals taking Truvada, kidney toxicity is a well known potential side effect for some individuals, thus is is closely monitored. It is obvious from your posting that no long term damage was done as the kidney as its function has improved, & is likely to continue to improve. You also know that you would not have been taking Truvada by itself, there is always a 3rd drug involved, yet you make no mention of this. Are we to assume you no longer take any ARV’s???
If you were suffering with continuing side effects why did you put up with them I have to ask? No one should expect you to have the constant SE’s you describe – were you fobbed off by your clinic? Whilst I am pro treatment I am pro quality of life & it seems that so many +ve individuals put up with SE’s because they are either fobbed off by over bearing Consultants or they are not making thier clinicians aware of these problems?
again with the half stories – it is also well known that most HIV meds don’t make it through the digestive system and the cytokine inhibitor ritonavir is used to slow down metabolisation of these drugs, otherwise they’d be just excreted before they could get to the bloodstream/marrow. of all the combos you could taken, If you don’t take ritonavir with them, you might as well eat smarties for all the good that will be done.I am NOT prepared to take drugs that make me unwell or less able to cope than I do now. most quacks won’t even tell you anything at all about your results other than ‘normal’ it was only by close examination of said results and a hydronephrotic kidney pressing on my sciatic nerve it was discovered at all. for any remaining naive persons out there, it is a doctors’ duty to tell you any story that, in their professional opinion, will gain the best outcome. there’s a bit in the GMC guide about this. it’s largely ignored as not too many people know it.
I think it is you that is only telling half the truth here Longterm – you as know, Ritonavir is only used as a boositng agent for the protease inhibitor class of drugs, NNRTI’s, Integrase Inhibitors, CCR5 antagonists are not co-administered with a CYP450 pathway inhibitor such as Ritonaivr. I am not sure why you did not mention this. From what you have said your last combo was a PI based one, as the side effects you describe are in keeping with this class of drug. Unless you have multidrug resistance then I do not understand why you did not ask for a change in treatment, but each to thier own.
I think it is a real shame when individuals do not get the support & help from their clinic to overcome the problems you have described – this is more a failure of the clinicians to carefully monitor the siutation rather than the failure of the drugs themselves. Some people find it very difficult to tolerate HIV meds, but this is not the majority with the modern drugs available today.
This is why peer led support & treatment advocate groups are so important, particularly in todays climate. If you have made the decision not to continue taking ARV’s this is a very brave decision. It is not something I would be prepared to do, but we all have to weigh up the benefits of treatment over quality of life. I am sorry that you had kidney problems, again your HIV clinician should have been closely monitoring this as it is standard practice. I have to say that there is no way of knowing if you as an individual were more susceptable to kidney damage with or without ARV’s – there is data to suggest that Tenofovir will add to the risk of pre exisiting kidney injury.
Both our views are valid from our own experience; I take a very active part in peer support around treatment & getting the best from our clinicians / clinics. It important that we help & support each other, at least you have personal experience unlike the infamous Samuel B who just spouts nonsense 95% of the time.
W6, you are in a minority of one in your enthusiasm of HIV drugs and your seeming determination to get all gay men doped up on them, pos and neg alike.
You will never, EVER convince gay men that drugging themselves with synthetic compounds which themselves compromise the immune system is the answer to HIV prevention.
What a hair-brained, crack-pot, ion side out, back to front theory is that, for Gawd’s sake??!!
With most gay men either heavy smokers, drinkers or recreational drug users, or combinations thereof, introducing crap like Truvada into their systems is just asking for trouble.
Take all that lot, run your immune system down and get tested for HIV a day or two later and, hey presto, a false positive diagnosis!
Mmmm, perhaps I have stumbled on the real agenda here…
Here’s a tip for you Samuel -if you don’t know the subject at least look things up before you make a fool of yourself!
“Take all that lot, run your immune system down and get tested for HIV a day or two later and, hey presto, a false positive diagnosis!” You obviously do not know how HIV tests work, so I will help you understand:
Here is your starter for 10 – what do HIV tests measure, is it?
a. CD4 cell counts (a measure of the strength of your immune system)
b. Antigens for HIV
c. HIV viral Load (estimate of how much virus per ml of blood)
d. CD4% (number of CD4 cells compared to other lymphocytes)
d Antibodies for HIV
e. None of the above
Answer on a post card
On a very serious note if you want to be taken seriously then do at least understand the basics of HIV testing, transmission, treatment & prevention. I look forward to your answer!
“With most gay men either heavy smokers, drinkers or recreational drug users, or combinations thereof” yet more disparaging, sterotypical and condescending comments about the very gay men you are so concerned about Samuel – you are full of contradictions.
All this bluster is about you, no one else – it’s about your totally irrational fear about HIV. The only way you feel any comfort is to look to others to blame for your anxiety – take responsiblility for yourself and focus your energies on dealing with your fears and homophobia that is so evident and becoming stronger with every post you make.
You have demonstrated to me that you really do need to learn more about HIV as clearly you have very limited knowledg. You could easily be putting yourself at risk of becoming infected with your blinkered view – many of the most careful individuals have ended up with a positive diagnosis, these are real people how recount their real stories about HIV, not some figment of your immagination.
Get a life Samuel – no one will take your complaint seriously as there is nothing to complain about. I do hope you have created a PDF file for this conversation to add to the others you have locked away as evidence.
Which drugs have I recommended Samuel? Where have I said take x drug instead of y drug. Are you not aware that any drug has to be prescribed by a clinician in this country? You go ahead and make your complaint – maybe I will see you in court!
You are the only person I know on PN who monitors the greens & reds, you bring it up in every debate – as I have said many many times I do not post here to be popular, I am here mainly to counter your very inaccurate & out of date information you post here.
You have shown time & time again you know nothing of the subject matter, all headline with no substance perfectly describes your contributions.
Seems that Samuel B was unable to understand the comments at the end of this comments page – probably far too technical for his tiny brain to understand.
Insterad he decides to revert back to his comfort zone of attacking HIV charities, and in particular THT.
This is his comfort zone, the same old tired lines regurgitated or stolen from other conributors.
He long ago was crowned the “village idiot” & he never fails to live up to this very accurate description of him.
I beleive he is a homophobic closet case who is obsessed with HIV. I so hope that he never gets a +ve HIV test result as he will be the first to squeal about stigma, discrimination…….what goes around comes around, best not have sex Samuel – it could be you next!
@W6-bloke – You are a total disgrace to your community with your campaign of soft pedalling and outrageous disinformation about HIV, which I as a pos man find hugely offensive considering how hard many of us have fought to raise the message to younger gays that HIV infection erodes your quality of life – don’t ever put yourselves at risk of exposure. Put a sock in it nOw, please, while you still have a shred on dignity intact. Thank you.
Your a bit late in the day me thinks Richie, but better late than never. Are you going to add anything remotely constructive to the debate, or did you just want to have a pop at me on behalf of Samuel B?
To be frank your comments are meaningless, but please I tribute to the debate on Truvada which is what this story is about.
@W6-bloke – your attitude is totally synonymous with the playground bully. You have insulted just about everyone on this board for disagreeing with your warped beliefs regarding effective HIV prevention methodology, practically wishing the virus on Samuel.B. What kind of a low-life are you? Are oh so miserable in your own diagnosis that you lOng to see all gay men infected through ignorance?
@Samuel.B – I may disagree with a lot of what you have to say on other issues, but boy you are so on the moneY where the HIV prevention is concerned. Keep socking it to that imbecilic Pariah W6-bloke. Thank you.
Richie you are entitled to your view about me, but I do have to ask what any of your belated comments have to do with the debate on Truvada as PrEP. Why show the interest now several days late and bring nothing of any value. I am not interested in your perception of me, by all means provide a counter argument to the scientifically factual information I have provided.
Samuel B can look after himself as he is the resident bulky as other regular commentators know only too well. If I didn’t know better you guys could be twins as you have identical ideologies & use similar language / phrasing.
Since when was it a crime to disagree with other people. We all have the right to an opinion – and I think you will find that I always back my opinions up with well researched facts & evidence taken form a very large network of other +ve individuals, are they not entitled to an opinion?
Again you echo the comments that Samuel B often thows at me about my own HIV diagnosis, me being miserable about it. You can speculate all you like, but I am very proud to be a +ve gay man who does not feel the need to hide my diagnosis away & lead a double life because of the fear, stigma & shame that the likes of Samuel B wish to perpetuate. Shame on you for propping the “village idiot” up. How do you feel about being a +ve gay man I wonder, do enlighten me, as you are the one who seems bitter & angry!
I do not intend HIV to curtail or erode my life – if you feel that your life has been eroded then that is down to you no one else!
What you are saying Richie is that gay guys should not have sex at all when you say “don’t ever put yourselves at risk of exposure”? How is this possible – condoms fail, oral sex is not 100% safe – if you think there is never a risk of exposure to HIV during oral /anal sex then you need to think again & check your own understanding before lecturing me on my knowledge of HIV. As a +ve man yourself can you confirm exactly where I have posted inaccurate “disinformation” about HIV or the meds used to treat HIV. I am sure you are very knowledgable about current treatment options, side effects & how well we as +ve individuals are monitored by our clinics. Enlighten me of your experience of living with HIV as you are so determined to discredit my experience of living with HIV.
I find it interesting that you have come to this debate so late in the day, what are your concerns about the use of Truvada as PrEP as a +ve person? At least try to engage in the debate or are you just here to troll???
Great posts, and well done for joining the ever growing roll-call of noted PN commentators such as LongtermPWA, Mikey, Gingerlycolors, Richard and many others by dishing it to the spineless W6.
You should note that usually, by now, W6 would’ve unleashed his pit ball, Will, to wade in with abuse to attempt to deflect criticism away from him.
Indeed, W6 latches on to such abuse from that one sad individual and quotes it time and again as if to suggest this entire forum feels that way about me, as bullies do.
Spot on, Richie, W6 is a bully of the worst sort as he screams abuse while hiding behind a daft moniker.
W6 will also attempt to rationalise that anyone who shares my views on HIV or supports my stance is me doing a Stu and using numerous aliases.
So you may find it amusing to discover that you, me, Gingerly and the rest are one and the same person.
W6 is now squawking his death throes like a demented Dalek.
He has long ago lost the argument, and indeed the plot.
Lol Samuel – you do interpret my postings in a very interesting way, and odd that now Will (who ever he is) is now my pit bull. I seem ot remember I was once another commentators pit bull once upon a time – wow I’ve had promotion & have my very own pit bull.
I see you are wheeling out the usual derogatory lines – nothing new you can think of? You Samuel have been proven to be a bully and many commentators are very aware of this.
Good to see that the Dalek jibe is back – I thought you were loosing your touch!
I note that both you and Richie do not provide any answers to my questions, & both of you attack me personally, so I can only conclude you are here to troll. No one is interested Samuel so go have your p!$$ing contest elsewhere you moron – isnt it time you put a picture up so you can be identified in your postings, which would easliy prevent the charge of diffent alias’ you often use! “village idiot” suits you very well (not my words tho eh Samuel)!
All I see from you and your “mate” Richie are personal attacks, you have not criticised me as both of you have shown you are unable to put forward an alternative valid argument with regard to the central story about the use of Truvada as PrEP. You Samuel haven’t even read the article properly otherwise you would realise that Truvada is not yet licensed for PrEP in the UK, so I really do not understand your problem. As usual you hijack all HIV stories & turn them into a THT / Nick Partridge arse kicking session. This is just another excuse for you to have a go and discredit me -you and your mate Richie are trolls pure and simple.
If Richie is so interested in this topic why has it taken him so long to contribute, and as a positive man himself why has he not been able to validate himself like Longterm has done. I may not agree with Longterm but at least we can talk about the science of HIV treatment – unlike you Samuel and your backup Richie.
Ever the conspirator, eh, W6?
Steady on, old boy, the dementia and paranoia really seem to be getting to you these days!!
Truvada is being pushed for use as an HIV prevention treatment in the US, no doubt by the forceful pharma lobbyists who know how to twist a few arms and bribe a few senators.
We can only pray that this is never allowed to happen, lest such a crack-brained ploy be implemented here also.
Yet we find none other than Nick Pratridge singing the initiative up and telling the media what a, and I quote, “exciting prospect” Truvada represents for negative people.
This from the same person caught in the middle of a drugs scandal in the early 1990s when THT was being paid by Glaxo to administer the killer chemo drug, AZT, to Aids-afflicted gay men.
20 years later and hey presto, Nick Pratridge – chief exec. of a charity that wouldn’t know what a real HIV campaign was if it jumped up and bit it on the bum – is STILL pushing pharma toxins on an unsuspecting populace!!
I guess that would be HIV related dementia that you are talking about Samuel? (Something you have said I suffer with previously). It is my meds that prevent HIV related dementia as they supress my virus to below 20 copies per ml of blood & protect my immune system – guess what I am very happy to take my meds, they keep me very healthy & I get zero side effects. And you wonder why I have faith in HIV science over your scaremongering – you are no better than the HIV denialists that are full of propagander!
Where is Truvada being “pushed” – you make it sound like that all HIV neg gay men will be forced to take this drug, but as we know you do not deal in facts, preferring to make something out of nothing. You go on about THT / GSK I have tried to research these allegations, but guess what, I am unable to find anything written about this, so please do provide a link where I may find said information. Any link will do!
“guess what I am very happy to take my meds, they keep me very healthy & I get zero side effects.”
That sums you up in a nutshell, W6.
“I’m alright, Jack. The meds work for me so the rest of you having less luck on them can go to hell!!”
You shout your faith in these drugs based on your own personal experience but to the detriment of those who ARE experiencing chronic side effects from ingesting the same drugs.
The flip side of your self-importance is that, one day, they WILL catch up with you:- you simply have a greater tolerance to withstand the extreme side effects for now.
Everything has a cumulative effect, W6.
For you to believe these toxins are having no effect on your biology is arrogance of the highest order.
I hope I’ll not be the first in line to say “I told your so” in 5, 10, however many years’ time.
Remember the saying, W6:-
“There but for the grace of God go I”.
At least have some grace and humility when responding with other pos men who are less fortunate.
And as if by magic a study that shows Antiretroviral therapy may be stabilising HIV epidemic in Danish gay men……
I wonder what spin the treatment denialists will put on this one!
Well, well, well.
So what brand of snake oil is W6 getting orgasmic about this time and is zealously trying to sell to us?
This study is from the same stable of studies pushing for wider use of HIV drugs as prevention as opposed to cure.
And I would lay odds of 99:1 that it was funded, as indeed is the entire HIV drugs as prevention agenda, by the pharmaceuticals.
W6 just doesn’t get it, lapping up the word of these know-it-all researchers without even bothering to check out who funds them.
None of them appear to be reporting from the direct experience of ingesting synthetic toxins day after day, year after year, do they?
Yet WE know what the long-term effects are capable of.
No, I prefer to the stick to the very real – ie. anecdotal – evidence of those like Longterm PWA, Nick Weeks, et al on which to base my own evaluation and assessment of these bodily corrosive compounds.
BTW, W6, the pharmas are also trying to convince everyone over 50 to take Statins to lower…
Never mind that users have widely reported muscle pain, liver damage, digestive problems, increased blood sugar leading to type 2 diabetes, neurological problems, rashes and a whole host of other delightful side effects, for which no doubt their corrupt doctors who are now in the pay of the pharmas will eagerly be recommending yet more noxious drugs to alleviate the symptoms off.
W6, the pharmas may have deceived and convinced half of Americans into believing that they need to be on anti-depressants for the rest of their lives, but the cat is now out of the bag and they will never, EVER convince the mainstream population that prevention for this and that should be via pills and potions as opposed to effective education and awareness programmes.
Now, on your bike, Billy Bunter (judging by your avatar pic).
Your brand of snake oil isn’t wanted here…
Those side effects are very real. Just not as prevalent as you may think. Drugs are withdrawn all the time if there is one better with less side effects like Amprenavir was. My concern with the drugs is that we do not yet know what the long term side effects may be. We can’t as even the oldest one AZT has been out less than 30 years. That was incredibly hard for people to take as initially people were overdosed on roughly 400mg every 4 hours compared to 250mg twice a day resulting in terrible side effects. It will be interesting to see what happens however the drugs have extended people’s lives dramatically so are worth taking.
The trouble with W6, poor dear, is that he laps up and believes everything any study ever conducted about an area of interest has to say.
It does not for one moment occur to him if the study or research is totally independently funded, of whether the quality of the information imparted may be entirely robust and impartial.
No, he just wades in and seizes upon and extracts all the facts ‘n’ figs he thinks he needs to make his hard sell.
He would sooner listen to a researcher or, worse, an “academic” who has no direct experience of living with HIV or ingesting the meds ad nauseum than believe those who are living the nightmare of aversion to drugs cocktails on a daily basis.
W6 has a selective filter that hears only what he wants to hear in his crusade to promote meds as the solution as opposed to being a problem for many gay men.
Now what words spring to mind to describe such a person?
Heartless, cold, dispassionate, detached, aloof, selfish, treacherous, spineless, sociopathic…
Hmmm, now, I wonder who is making these scurrilous claims about ADR (Adverse Drug Reactions):-
- Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly
- 100,000 DEATHS yearly
- ADRs 4th leading cause of death ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents and automobile deaths
- Ambulatory patients ADR rate—unknown
- Nursing home patients ADR rate— 350,000 yearly
Don’t tell me, W6, these are all fabricated lies from the HIV drugs-as=prevention “denialists”, as you label everyone on this thread.
So, any idea?
How about the U.S. Food and Drug Administration?
Yep, that’s right, the regulating body for the very toxins we have been debating is at least straightforward and truthful with the facts:-
It seems the only denialist around these parts is staring you square in the mirror!!!
W6, I do suggest you get more with it.
Ever heard of the band, Muse?
One of the most popular bands in the world today, no less.
I suggest that instead of pouring over dubious research, you instead study the lyrics to one of their massive songs, Uprising, which basically says everything I have been saying in this debate in a nutshell:-
“The paranoia is in bloom, the PR
The transmissions will resume
They’ll try to push drugs
Keep us all dumbed down and hope that
We will never see the truth around
(So come on!)
Another promise, another scene, another
A package not to keep us trapped in greed
With all the green belts wrapped around our minds
And endless red tape to keep the truth confined
(So come on!)
They will not force us
They will stop degrading us
They will not control us
We will be victorious
Interchanging mind control
Come let the revolution take its toll if you could
Flick the switch and open your third eye, you’d see that
We should never be afraid to die
(So come on!)…
Rise up and take the power back, it’s time that
The fat cats had a heart attack, you know that
Their time is coming to an end
We have to unify and watch our flag ascend
Hey .. hey … hey .. hey!
Hey .. hey … hey .. hey!”
Just to round off a thread that has just decended into a complete waste of time 1 further point Samuel:
I know the economic climate has been extremely tough since the financial meltdown, but I hadnt realised that things had got so bad that “High End Department Stores” are now so concerned about filling their consession space that they now include Poundland (seems about right for your level of retail savvy – pile it high & sell it cheap).
These “High End” companies, they do take the biscuit eh Samuel? They will do anything to make a fast buck -filing their space with dros just to make sure the CEO’;s & Chairmen are kept in their fat cat salaries & pensions. Face it Samuel you are all bluster & no action, you wouldnt have lasted an hour in a tent on the steps of St Pauls, so pull the other one that somehow the lyrics you quote represent you in any shape or form. You are far too much of a closet gayboy / homophobe to even align yourself with the anti-capitalism movement!
This did make me smile – not sure if it demonstrates you actually do have a less serious side to life that is not riven by anxiety!
All very interesting Samuel – given your last few posts I think you may have had a few too many pink gins…………I’m sure it has been a very busy day in your retail emporium & we all need to unwind from time to time.
My final comment on this particular thread is rather like an end of term school report.
“Samuel tries very hard, he has a very imaginative mind & has shown some investigative skills. However he lacks the academic ability to be able to explain the detail behind the headlines. He is a daydreamer that is unable to grasp many of the scientific principles that underpin reasoned argument.
Overall grade for the term – tries hard but his ability to read correctly lets him down. Must research & provide direct answers & not evade the question by waffling.
2/10 – suggests remedial help required as he may end up in a dead end retail job where he will only comand the minimum wage.
I think my last few posts really have you lost for words, W6.
If they may you think, even a teeny bit, about where you choose to place your faith in truth, then that’s a huge step forward methinks!
To have been awarded 20% of all available points from yourself I actually consider quite an honour, as I wouldn’t've expected a meagre 1% from your direction, so I guess it’s progress!
As for my job, mock ye may but at least I am out there doing an honest day’s graft 5, nay, sometimes 6 days a week, and paying my taxes so that others with an awful lot of time on their hands can stay at home on their computer all day (naming no names, of course)…
And may I reassure you I command a darned good wage as I manage my own concessionary boutique in one of Oxford Street’s finest department stores, and I am proud to wave the flad for the label I work for.
You have not exactly been forthcoming about YOUR career status, W6, though it does appear you have WAY too much time on your hands!