51–60 of 93 posts
For me the biggest surprise in the article is that there are 180,000 men in the United States on Prep. Given a back of the envelope calculation of 4.8m out gay men in America (3% of population) that means adoption is itself around 3%. Somehow I imagined truvada was more widey adopted but perhaps it is just heavily marketed on the east coast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like most things in science, be suspicious of pure logical arguments. The question for any test, even a true-false, is first a matter of "how much". Antibodies fade over time , ergo various vaccine boosters, such as tetanus. At some point, we can't detect it.
I don’t know why is this being downvoted. Anti bodies are produced to combat a pathogen if the levels of the pathogen are below of what would trigger the immune system you will not produce anti bodies and the ones that you have had produced will fade of over time you don’t have anti bodies for every pathogen you encounter flowing through your blood that would likely kill you. If the pill can reduce the virus to trace…
Developed by Gilead, the same company that created the Hep-C cure Sovaldi. Some kick-ass work there.
Have been googling Solvadi. Wow, curable hepatitis c is a big achievemt. But it‘s insanely expensive. It has to be taken daily for at least 12 weeks, with each pill costing 400€! The chance of curing is at 90%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Truvada does nothing to change identification of HIV+ donors. Truvada does not change response to HIV tests, an HIV+ person taking Truvada as part of treatment does not stop testing positive for HIV antibodies. Nothing changes from the existing blood donation situation due to Truvada.
Like most things in science, be suspicious of pure logical arguments. The question for any test, even a true-false, is first a matter of "how much". Antibodies fade over time , ergo various vaccine boosters, such as tetanus. At some point, we can't detect it.
So if someone asks "Does strawberry intake affect HIV antibody tests?", the answer isn't "no"?
Interesting problem we're dealing with: Truvada potentially makes it harder to identify HIV+ blood donors (as their antibody titers fall naturally over time) and raises the question of whether HIV+ individuals will be more likely to attempt to donate in order to "prove they're safe". It is a well-known fact in their community that men having sex with men are deferred from being blood donors for 12 months from last ma…
What? This sounds like completely made up scaremongering. Why wouldn't they just get their viral load tested?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like most things in science, be suspicious of pure logical arguments. The question for any test, even a true-false, is first a matter of "how much". Antibodies fade over time , ergo various vaccine boosters, such as tetanus. At some point, we can't detect it.
> The question for any test, even a true-false, is first a matter of "how much". So if someone asks "Does strawberry intake affect HIV antibody tests?", the answer isn't "no"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have been googling Solvadi. Wow, curable hepatitis c is a big achievemt. But it‘s insanely expensive. It has to be taken daily for at least 12 weeks, with each pill costing 400€! The chance of curing is at 90%.
It was $100k per course at the time of introduction in the US, which resulted in a lot of hate. But it is a miracle. A close relative of mine was cured, and it had a profound effect on her quality of life. Gilead has very different prices in different regions, we sourced from a place that was much cheaper.
Interesting problem we're dealing with: Truvada potentially makes it harder to identify HIV+ blood donors (as their antibody titers fall naturally over time) and raises the question of whether HIV+ individuals will be more likely to attempt to donate in order to "prove they're safe". It is a well-known fact in their community that men having sex with men are deferred from being blood donors for 12 months from last ma…
>raises the question of whether HIV+ individuals will be more likely to attempt to donate in order to "prove they're safe". What? This sounds like completely made up scaremongering. Why wouldn't they just get their viral load tested?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>raises the question of whether HIV+ individuals will be more likely to attempt to donate in order to "prove they're safe". What? This sounds like completely made up scaremongering. Why wouldn't they just get their viral load tested?
Thinking of remote possibilities and assuming your patients could be lying to you (corollary: trust but verify) is pretty standard practice in medicine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edit: common STDs that are treated by antibiotics are becoming drug resistant like anything can be that is treated with antibiotics. Point is don’t think because you can take an antibiotic and make syphilis go away now that you won’t encounter a drug resistant strain now or in the very near future! https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna642161 Lol there’s no cure for syphillis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hep b, genital herp…
> Lol there’s no cure for syphillis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hep b, etc etc. Each and everyone disease you listed here can be cured. Example, Syphilis - https://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/lab/default.htm