3 ms·

Once again, PrEP is a miracle drug and future generations will be baffled as to why we were so slow in adopting it.

DataWorker 7y ago
Or, as humans have in many other epochs, they will recognize the superiority of life long pair bonding and understand that sexuality and human dignity are related in a way that the self serving cultural relativists, and most contemporary economists, are unable to conceive.
- EdwardDiego 7y ago
  Oh cool, someone who knows what is objectively the best.
big_chungus 7y ago
No, it's not. All medications have risks, and it has its own slew of potential side effects: https://www.rxlist.com/truvada-side-effects-drug-center.htm https://www.rxlist.com/truvada-side-effects-drug-center.htm This approach is like putting promiscuous people on constant antibiotic treatment to avoid bacterial venereal diseases. It doesn't make sense long-term. It seems as though in the backlash against complete puritanism towards sexual activity, many people have moved too far and started implying that it is completely safe. It's not, even if you practice it "safely", and it's still important to emphasize that.
heavyset_go 7y ago
It's not baffling at all, it costs $1,800 for 30 days worth of Truvada. Descovy has less side-effects than Truvada, but Gilead conveniently timed Descovy's indication for PrEP to align with Truvada's patent expiration. Truvada is particularly hard on the kidneys, and can cause kidney damage or failure. Descovy doesn't put its users at risk of kidney damage. The wholesale cost of generic Truvada in the developing world is $6 to $8.
- jimbob45 7y ago
  My thing is that the government would want to subsidize it. Who wouldn't want to score political points as the guy who eradicated HIV? (or made a big dent) However, based on what you're saying, I wonder if the push is being delayed so that the government can wait for the patent expiration and subsidize at a much cheaper cost.
  - heavyset_go 7y ago
    There's more political value in demonizing at-risk populations than there is addressing the public health issues that affect them.

Or, as humans have in many other epochs, they will recognize the superiority of life long pair bonding and understand that sexuality and human dignity are related in a way that the self serving cultural relativists, and most contemporary economists, are unable to conceive.

EdwardDiego 7y ago
Oh cool, someone who knows what is objectively the best.

big_chungus 7y ago

No, it's not. All medications have risks, and it has its own slew of potential side effects: https://www.rxlist.com/truvada-side-effects-drug-center.htm https://www.rxlist.com/truvada-side-effects-drug-center.htm This approach is like putting promiscuous people on constant antibiotic treatment to avoid bacterial venereal diseases. It doesn't make sense long-term. It seems as though in the backlash against complete puritanism towards sexual activity, many people have moved too far and started implying that it is completely safe. It's not, even if you practice it "safely", and it's still important to emphasize that.

heavyset_go 7y ago

It's not baffling at all, it costs $1,800 for 30 days worth of Truvada. Descovy has less side-effects than Truvada, but Gilead conveniently timed Descovy's indication for PrEP to align with Truvada's patent expiration. Truvada is particularly hard on the kidneys, and can cause kidney damage or failure. Descovy doesn't put its users at risk of kidney damage. The wholesale cost of generic Truvada in the developing world is $6 to $8.

jimbob45 7y ago
My thing is that the government would want to subsidize it. Who wouldn't want to score political points as the guy who eradicated HIV? (or made a big dent) However, based on what you're saying, I wonder if the push is being delayed so that the government can wait for the patent expiration and subsidize at a much cheaper cost.
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  There's more political value in demonizing at-risk populations than there is addressing the public health issues that affect them.