Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 237 posts

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#141

Post by wtdata »

nerdjon wrote: post #138
wtdata wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about we just don't fucking shame people for not wanting to use a condom as long as both (or all) parties agree. Especially when there is a drug like prep. That depends if it's those people bearing the full cost of buying PrEP, or if they expect the state/insurance companies to do it for them.

Why not, in most not ass backwards places you can get free condoms. Maybe it should not cost $1300 a month for no good reason in the US.

The good reason is that PrEP has negative side effects, it's expensive, and you don't need it if you show some personal responsibility and use a condom.

Nobody should be expected to be financing your personal preferences when it comes to the way you prefer to have sexual intercourse.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#144

Post by luckylion »

nerdjon wrote: post #126
luckylion wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Straight men/women can easily have it and one fuckup and you can be infected The probability is low though, and apparently there are side effects. We also don't preemptively dish out antibiotics for similar reasons: they won't do you any good unless under very specific circumstances and you will likely experience side-effects. Do no harm.

yes there are side effects. But the plan for prep also specifically includes you going into the doctor every 3 months to not only test for those side effects but also for a full STD panel. (Source: my husband and me are both on prep) Just saying that "at risk" people should be trying to prevent this ignores a large portion of the population to try to stop its spread. Thankfully a vaccine is in testing now, but if thi…

My point was that "at risk" means "seriously at risk", not "well, you are theoretically at risk, so better safe than sorry". If you're statistically not very likely to be infected, the side effects may outweigh the good.

> if this was a vaccine most people would probably not question taking it

Doctors would, or so I hope, not recommend taking a vaccine with serious side-effects without a reason. You typically don't get vaccinated for Dengue fever when traveling to Helsinki.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#145

Post by mbrameld »

agentdrtran wrote: post #133
Geimfari wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The drug has several non-minor side effects, is prohibitively expensive, and is the same as the treatment for someone who already has the virus. I for one think it's improper to prescribe a drug with these nephrological side effects to a large number of otherwise healthy individuals, not even accounting for the cost.

Where did you go to med school?

Attack the message, not the messenger.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#146

Post by plazmatic »

t34543 wrote: post #11

I had a scare and took PeP this year. I had to ER shop. First one denied me coverage and made assumptions. I ended up getting care at a cost of ~$6000 to my insurance. I paid $270. I have great healthcare but this is obscene. I don’t want to get sick and die. I was being careful but accidents happen.

American health care is an absolute travesty and embarrassment to western civilization.

Just shameful.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#147

Post by jdietrich »

Geimfari wrote: post #116
jimbob45 wrote: post #2

Well, PrEP is a miracle drug that has gone criminally underutilized in the fight to eradicate HIV. It would be nice to see governments really push it hard for a change.

The drug has several non-minor side effects, is prohibitively expensive, and is the same as the treatment for someone who already has the virus. I for one think it's improper to prescribe a drug with these nephrological side effects to a large number of otherwise healthy individuals, not even accounting for the cost.

If it weren't for Gilead's legal efforts to extend the patent on Truvada, it'd be a dirt cheap generic by now; it already is in many countries.

You might think it's improper, but the evidence says otherwise - PrEP is safe, well-tolerated, marginally cost-effective at proprietary prices and clearly cost-effective at generic prices.

One of the fundamental principles of modern medicine is informed consent. Patients have the right to make their own decisions about their treatment based on their own assessment of the risks and benefits. PrEP is an incredibly compelling proposition for a lot of patients.

https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/prep/en/

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#148

Post by nerdjon »

wtdata wrote: post #141
nerdjon wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not, in most not ass backwards places you can get free condoms. Maybe it should not cost $1300 a month for no good reason in the US.

The good reason is that PrEP has negative side effects, it's expensive, and you don't need it if you show some personal responsibility and use a condom. Nobody should be expected to be financing your personal preferences when it comes to the way you prefer to have sexual intercourse.

Seriously, people need to stop with this negative side effects bullshit.

Yes there are side effects, there are fucking side effects to almost anything medical.

The side effects are minimal at worst considering you have to go into the doctor every 3 months for testing (both for the side effects and a full STD panel). If they notice an issue they take you off of it.

Condoms are not 100% though, neither is prep. Its just another option and if the US was not being gouged in the price of prep, the cost would not be much different than the cost of condoms depending on how frequently you are having sex.

I am showing personal responsibility by both myself and my husband using Prep and getting tested regularly.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#149

Post by i80and »

wtdata wrote: post #141
nerdjon wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not, in most not ass backwards places you can get free condoms. Maybe it should not cost $1300 a month for no good reason in the US.

The good reason is that PrEP has negative side effects, it's expensive, and you don't need it if you show some personal responsibility and use a condom. Nobody should be expected to be financing your personal preferences when it comes to the way you prefer to have sexual intercourse.

The FDA hasn't approved condoms for anal sex, and the failure rate for latex condoms is high in that usage. And lambskin condoms, while stronger, are explicitly labeled as not being suitable for disease prevention.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#150

Post by jdietrich »

ChrisRR wrote: post #65
mm202018 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s insane that it is $1400/month out of pocket, and if you have a high deductible plan you’d still be paying $6k+ potentially before it’s covered.

That's insane. In the UK the NHS doesn't supply it yet, and GPs won't officially recommend it. But you'll find the NHS clinics quite often recommending prep purchase through international websites and referring you to HIV charities. It costs about £30 pm in that case which is about $40 Often they'll be running studies at the same time to assess the feasibility of Prep on the NHS.

PrEP is now available on the NHS in Scotland and on a pilot basis in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

https://www.iwantprepnow.co.uk/prep-on-the-nhs/

Post reply on HN