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

151–160 of 237 posts

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#151

Post by jdietrich »

driverdan wrote: post #128
nness wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow your comment; The drug is intended for those people at risk of contracting the disease. Why would you take PrEP if you weren't at risk? (Your also discounting drug users; but unfortunately those addicted and at risk are also the least likely to have the means to acquire the drug.)

> Your also discounting drug users If a drug user is doing something as stupid as sharing needles they're likely not in the right state of mind to take PrEP.

Accidental sharing is very much a thing; it's not just needles and syringes that pose a risk, but other injecting equipment like spoons and filters. Nobody is infallible, especially intoxicated people, but that's no reason to deny them the benefits offered by PrEP.

https://www.injectingadvice.com/v4/index.php/articles/harm-r...

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#152

Post by jdietrich »

nness wrote: post #90
lm28469 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Miracle drug with unknown long term side effects* I wouldn't take it unless I was a non monogamous gay man[0], the risks out-weights the benefits in any other demographics imho. [0] not that I have anything against that per say, it's just statistically the most affected demographic

I don't follow your comment; The drug is intended for those people at risk of contracting the disease. Why would you take PrEP if you weren't at risk? (Your also discounting drug users; but unfortunately those addicted and at risk are also the least likely to have the means to acquire the drug.)

>Your also discounting drug users

Also sex workers, also trans women, also people from countries with a high prevalence of HIV in the general population.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#153

Post by nerdjon »

luckylion wrote: post #144
nerdjon wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

I can agree with that.

Maybe I should rephrase that, anyone in not in a monogamous relationship (and having sex) should at least discuss it with their Doctor and see if it would be worth them being on.

I find it shocking when I am talking to someone and find out they have no idea that prep even exists.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#154

Post by cultus »

wtdata wrote: post #129

PrEP has negative side effects (besides being quite expensive for the state), condoms on the other side, don't have side effects, and are cheap. It's a matter of having some sense of personal responsibility really.

Wow, you're a homophobic bigot, and you also have no idea what you're talking about.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#155

Post by gothack »

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.

So for the same reasons: - No one should fund your child birth because of your personal preferences. - No one should fund your ER visit because of your own personal preferences. - No one should fund your mental health care because of your own personal preferences.

Where do you stop with the personal preferences? Sexuality? Being transgender? Choosing to skydive? Ending up in poverty? Having sex? Abuse victims living with depression and anxiety? Paying through the nose for the same private insurance as you? I am not suggesting the above are personal preference, but some people use arguments that they are, and that people should be denied healthcare treatment because of it.

Your insurance is covering a lot more than you spend on healthcare, that's how insurance works (and makes a tonne of profit doing so). A lot of people take pharmaceutical drugs to keep themselves healthy, PrEP is one of the many.

I'm fully aware of the side effects, I'm one of the few who had a severe allergic reaction to it, that was a hellish few days I do not wish to repeat; but I'm still for people who can take it being prescribed it if it helps reduce risk.

As for cost, maybe the patent system needs an overhaul, or maybe drug companies should have the same price for all customers, or perhaps healthcare should be centralized and and the current dictatorship of insurance and drug companies reduced to mere socialism instead, but that's a whole other discussion.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#156

Post by joshuamorton »

notyourday wrote: post #94
nness wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow your comment; The drug is intended for those people at risk of contracting the disease. Why would you take PrEP if you weren't at risk? (Your also discounting drug users; but unfortunately those addicted and at risk are also the least likely to have the means to acquire the drug.)

It is not about who the drug is being intended for -- it is about who the drug is being marketed to. For example there's a massive campaign targeting both men and women engaging in any sort of sexual activity that includes fluid exchange promoting usage of PrEP. One can see it in a subway and on local commercials on TV.

Where?

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#157

Post by wtdata »

nerdjon wrote: post #148
wtdata wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 jus…

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

Can't understand why you need PrEP unless you or your husband have unprotected sex outside marriage. That's the personal responsibility needed for both you and your husband: not having unprotected sex with other partners.

Again, can't see why the state or the other people paying their health insurances should have to pay for your preferences when it comes to use a condom. Nobody likes to use condoms... yet, responsible people, do.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#158

Post by sadris »

nerdjon wrote: post #132
wtdata wrote: post #129

PrEP has negative side effects (besides being quite expensive for the state), condoms on the other side, don't have side effects, and are cheap. It's a matter of having some sense of personal responsibility really.

1. Condoms break 2. Some people are allergic to them 3. There are some activities that you really don't want to do with a condom 4. 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.

HIV has already mutated to bypass prep. There was a case in SF about 8 months ago in the local news.

Wear condoms.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#159

Post by sadris »

nostrebored wrote: post #53
gleb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s sort of what porn industry does with HIV RNA TMA test. I suspect it’s quite effective.

It still has a multiple week delay before it tests positive...

HIV can remain undetectable for up to six months.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#160

Post by nerdjon »

wtdata wrote: post #157
nerdjon wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 jus…

> I am showing personal responsibility by both myself and my husband using Prep and getting tested regularly. Can't understand why you need PrEP unless you or your husband have unprotected sex outside marriage. That's the personal responsibility needed for both you and your husband: not having unprotected sex with other partners. Again, can't see why the state or the other people paying their health insurances should…

We are both on prep because we are in an open relationship, and yes sometimes that involves "unprotected" sex.

Again though, if it was not for the fact that the US continues to charge significantly more than any other country I would happily pay for it myself.

I already pay for the copay. I am not personally asking for the government or anyone else to pay for my Prep.

But, as it is we offer condoms for free if you know where to look.

(Ignoring the fact that this is under attack for a moment...) we offer reproductive services to woman that need it.

So why the fuck is prep so different.

God forbid as a society we focus on the society as a whole instead of demonizing the choices that people make.

Post reply on HN