Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Charities: Gay men can benefit from PrEP but it shouldn’t replace condom use

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. PrEP is a brilliant idea; but it’s also only the first step. It needs a lot of work before it can be considered a replacement for condoms. I spent much of last summer in hospital having an admittedly rare reaction (near fatal) to one of truvada’s constituent drugs, but as I’m fond of saying “side effects are not compulsory”.

    It could be that PrEP is the way forward for HIV prevention, but a lot more work needs to be done before it’s truly safe.

  2. I don’t see why people would even think for a second that PrEP is even a potential replacement for condoms. After all, HIV isn’t the only STD that gay men can catch. Discarding condoms just because you probably won’t (but may still) is just being completely careless when it comes to your health

  3. Riddle me this Debs Jack:- if PEP should not be considers an alternative to condom use, then why the friggin’ heck have THT and GMFA been zealously pushing it for premeditated unsafe sex in ads that resemble campaigns for Persil and Ariel?

    PEP was never intended to treat anything other than accidental exposure and the UK was warned its use would be abused by counterparts in the US who found it being prescribed to the same “weekend warriors” as a fix-it for barebacking with multiple partners.

    The one catch is that the efficacy of PEP has never been proven, but that hasn’t stopped it being handed out like the pill at £600 a course.

    In fact PEP is so highly toxic that most people never complete a full course, and those who do risk subsequent courses of HIV drugs being less effective.

    What sheer lunacy is THAT:- the only beneficiaries being the pharmas and the HIV charities who win lucrative contracts to flog their drugs.

    Silly me, i knew there was a raison d’être somewhere.

    1. This article relates to PrEP not PEP (there is a difference, go look it up)!

      Once again you show your lack of understanding, thereby making your comments worthless!

      1. The difference is miniscule, W6:- they are both post-exposure courses sung up by the pharmas to possibly prevent HIV transmission when there is no scientific data that exists to prove this.

        Next?!

        1. Still wrong, there is a clue in the acronym!

          Perhaps you could explain the difference between PEP & PrEP for the benefit of those of us who are clueless!

          Also I would be interested to know which drugs are used for PEP & which for PrEP as you are so confident about your understanding…………….

          1. Can the two of you get a bedroom… And take a pep and prep before you both bareback eachother

          2. As ever, W6, your anal retention on this matter is to do with the fact that you hyper-analyse every detail about these drugs in order to decree to other gay men what courses they should be prescribed.

            As such you deal with semantics:- the ordinary guy on the street, however, is just concerned with how he is being led up the river by quack science that influences governments to spend millions on pre and post therapies that have no proven efficacy yet in themselves are highly toxic but a goldmine for the manufacturers.

            Hand in glove, of course, with the HIV charities they fund and who have co-ordinated an agenda to sleazify gay culture:- not just via its launching of sites such as hardcell.org.uk but by the example of those who are appointed to design the campaigns, for heaven’s sake!!!

            HIV prevention has, to put it bluntly, been subverted and the “condoms always” message been dimmed and silenced in favour of expensive pre and post preventive treatments.

            How insane is THAT, W6?!!

          3. As ever Samuel we get the same rhetoric with each & every HIV related story from you. It is important to distinguish the differences between PEP & PrEP & you are posting messages here that cloud the important issues which many gay men have the right to discuss without being lambasted by your lack of real concern & interest in the subject matter.

            I understand the background upon which you make these remarks, but I really do think it is time for you to move on from that particular episode, no matter how difficult it was at the time. It is unfair of you to constantly portray the fantastic work that is going on within both HIV care, treatment & prevention technology that will one day win the war on HIV as some kind of conspiracy. For goodness sake you are at complete odds with 99% of the thinking across the world on this matter, by all means be the 1% but please do not expect the rest of us to follow you.

          4. “For goodness sake you are at complete odds with 99% of the thinking across the world on this matter, by all means be the 1% but please do not expect the rest of us to follow you”

            Oh dear W6 – or should that really be (ahem) “D_J”, your rather imaginative alias du jour? – how you hang yourself by the extreme irony implicit in your own words.

            For ’tis your beloved pharma industry that numbers itself in the 0.1%, never mind the 1%, while gay men represent the 99.9% they feed off dispensing not cure but dependency toxins.

            Pharma is being exposed by the day, creating clients not cures through encouraging and creating the very causes and symptoms it professes to remedy.

            The world is awakening, W6, but seems you choose to be left behind to face the day of reckoning isolated from the mass consensus when the shlt truly hits the fan and humanity demands retribution for its pharma-inflicted suffering.

          5. I see you are up to your old tricks in another thread eh Samuel???? I can be whoever you want me to be if that makes you happy? As always my postings can be identified by my avatar, unlike your good-self. Just when I think you are a half decent individual you once again prove that you are quite the opposite.

            Now I suggest you stop making personal references about me in threads that I have not even contributed to – this just demonstrates yet again that there is something very unsavoury about the way you target individuals & troll them. It seems I now have to become anonymous with my postings to avoid your harassment – so much for your mantra of freedom of speech & thought. You are a shameful individual!

        2. There are very big difference between the two, for a start, one (PEP) is available, whilst the other (PrEP) is not, unless you want to enroll in a clinical trial called PROUD.

          Then Drugs for PEP or PrEP are no different than drugs for Treatments and therefore they are no more toxic than treatment, which to be honest is not as toxic as it used to be. A lot of HIV positive on treatment can comment.

          Then the statement issue is very mild and If you were to attend IAPAC in London you would have heard that PrEP is not for today or tomorrow in the UK and that as recently as Sunday, THT was till pushing for condom (http://bit.ly/1fsOdln)

          And that is a problem because prevention still relied far too much on condom promotion that does not work (the promotion, not the condom). Condom use has remained stable for the last 10 years and we need to address the 40-50% of people who do not use them. PrEP in this context is one answer (not the only one though)

  4. Lion in Winter 24 Sep 2013, 1:38am

    Here’s a concept: don’t have sex with complete strangers.

    The more neg people scream about mandatory condom use, the more I think they just want to go back to the bath houses of the ’70’s.

  5. Surely not even YOU, W6 Blokey, are naive or ignorant enough – and if not either of those then suffering an acute bout of cognitive dissonance – not to recognise the multi-billion dollar industry that has spawned around the HIV virus?

    Do you or do you not concede that had the emphasis always remained on a “condom always” approach and that the message remained unequivocal – that a life without HIV is a better quality of life lived – instead of the emphasis being placed on synthetic and often toxic compounds as solutions to the problem in the form of life saving drugs and pre and post formulations, that the HIV epidemic still confined mostly to gay men in the developed world may have ended by now?

    Do you not see the elephant of a conspiracy that has allowed and enabled the HIV virus to thrive, and in its wake secure billions for the pharmas and gold-plated careers for quasi-NGOs and the likes of THT which conspired to create the HIV facilitating conditions we are ravaged by today?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all