4 ms·

> HAART leaves people extremely vulnerable to infection as well, after all. The difference is that HAART means that point will come at some unpredictable point

> HAART leaves people extremely vulnerable to infection as well, after all. The difference is that HAART means that point will come at some unpredictable point in the future, > And beyond that, it fails to consider the risks of decades of really toxic medication. Is a bone marrow transplant really worse than decades of liver damage followed by developing AIDS eventually anyway? This is an outdated and objectively incorrect description of HAART. > but dismissing the heavy questions of a persons life with "basically normal" is not helpful. "Basically normal" is an approximately correct description of the life of most HIV+ people who have easy access to HAART. What's not helpful is responding to that with fearmongering based on incorrect and/or grossly outdated information.

torstenvl 4y ago
Liver damage is a known adverse effect of both emtricitabine and tenofovir, which are extremely common antiretrovirals, an indisputable fact verifiable by anyone on the Internet. There's a difference between fearmongering and informed consent, and I would ask you to refrain both from spreading misinformation and from making personal attacks. Accusing someone of "fearmongering" for pointing out risks you falsely say do not exist is inappropriate.
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > Liver damage is a known adverse effect of both emtricitabine and tenofovir, which are extremely common antiretrovirals, an indisputable fact verifiable by anyone on the Internet. Your comment literally claims that long-term HAART carries a significant (or even certain) risk of long-term liver damage, a claim which is baseless and unsupported. You're also conflating acute adverse reactions - which are astronomically rare - with long-term side-effects, when there's no relationship between the two. Not only are tenofovir and emtricitabine safe for the liver, but they are literally commonly prescribed for people who have chronic liver problems because they are so well tolerated. People who can't take Tylenol are able to take them. It's a gross mischaracterization to suggest that they cause "decades of liver damage", a claim which is soundly contradicted by medical literature. > There's a difference between fearmongering and informed consent, and I would ask you to refrain both from spreading misinformation and from making personal attacks. I never made any personal attack at any point. I would, however, flip this request back at you and ask you to stop spreading misinformation, which is what you are clearly doing. > Your insistence on gaslighting does not lend credibility to your other claims. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    No. It "literally" does not. Read it again. Your comparison to Tylenol is misleading. People aren't required to receive regular liver enzyme tests before being allowed to use Tylenol. Read the guidelines yourself. Accusing people of fearmongering is a personal attack. If you think I'm wrong (and the FDA is wrong) about the risk of liver damage, feel free to present that evidence here (or better yet, to the FDA, so people can have better access to PrEP). Don't make false and ad hominem claims about my motivations.
    - chimeracoder 4y ago
      > Your comparison to Tylenol is misleading. People aren't required to receive regular liver enzyme tests before being allowed to use Tylenol. People aren't required to receive "regular liver enzyme tests" before taking these drugs either. > free to present that evidence here You've made a lot of claims without presenting any evidence to back any of them up. Moreover, your claims could be trivially debunked by even a cursory search. The burden is not on me or others to do that work when you yourself present zero evidence for any of the fantastical claims you make. > Don't make false and ad hominem claims about my motivations. I never made any claim about your motivation. "Fearmongering" is a specific, descriptive term about your actions, the effect they have on others, and their factual basis (or lack thereof). On the other hand, you accused me of gaslighting (before editing it out of your comment and replacing it with a different accusation). That is an ad hominem attack, ascribing specific and malicious motivations.
      - torstenvl 4y ago
        I can't make claims about your country's medical system. In the U.S., where I am, regular liver enzyme tests are a requirement for a Truvada prescription. [EDIT: This is incorrect; I was mistaken.] Also: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fearmongering https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fearm... It's an ad hominem.
        chimeracoder 4y ago

torstenvl 4y ago

Liver damage is a known adverse effect of both emtricitabine and tenofovir, which are extremely common antiretrovirals, an indisputable fact verifiable by anyone on the Internet. There's a difference between fearmongering and informed consent, and I would ask you to refrain both from spreading misinformation and from making personal attacks. Accusing someone of "fearmongering" for pointing out risks you falsely say do not exist is inappropriate.

chimeracoder 4y ago
> Liver damage is a known adverse effect of both emtricitabine and tenofovir, which are extremely common antiretrovirals, an indisputable fact verifiable by anyone on the Internet. Your comment literally claims that long-term HAART carries a significant (or even certain) risk of long-term liver damage, a claim which is baseless and unsupported. You're also conflating acute adverse reactions - which are astronomically rare - with long-term side-effects, when there's no relationship between the two. Not only are tenofovir and emtricitabine safe for the liver, but they are literally commonly prescribed for people who have chronic liver problems because they are so well tolerated. People who can't take Tylenol are able to take them. It's a gross mischaracterization to suggest that they cause "decades of liver damage", a claim which is soundly contradicted by medical literature. > There's a difference between fearmongering and informed consent, and I would ask you to refrain both from spreading misinformation and from making personal attacks. I never made any personal attack at any point. I would, however, flip this request back at you and ask you to stop spreading misinformation, which is what you are clearly doing. > Your insistence on gaslighting does not lend credibility to your other claims. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- torstenvl 4y ago
  No. It "literally" does not. Read it again. Your comparison to Tylenol is misleading. People aren't required to receive regular liver enzyme tests before being allowed to use Tylenol. Read the guidelines yourself. Accusing people of fearmongering is a personal attack. If you think I'm wrong (and the FDA is wrong) about the risk of liver damage, feel free to present that evidence here (or better yet, to the FDA, so people can have better access to PrEP). Don't make false and ad hominem claims about my motivations.
  - chimeracoder 4y ago
    > Your comparison to Tylenol is misleading. People aren't required to receive regular liver enzyme tests before being allowed to use Tylenol. People aren't required to receive "regular liver enzyme tests" before taking these drugs either. > free to present that evidence here You've made a lot of claims without presenting any evidence to back any of them up. Moreover, your claims could be trivially debunked by even a cursory search. The burden is not on me or others to do that work when you yourself present zero evidence for any of the fantastical claims you make. > Don't make false and ad hominem claims about my motivations. I never made any claim about your motivation. "Fearmongering" is a specific, descriptive term about your actions, the effect they have on others, and their factual basis (or lack thereof). On the other hand, you accused me of gaslighting (before editing it out of your comment and replacing it with a different accusation). That is an ad hominem attack, ascribing specific and malicious motivations.
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      I can't make claims about your country's medical system. In the U.S., where I am, regular liver enzyme tests are a requirement for a Truvada prescription. [EDIT: This is incorrect; I was mistaken.] Also: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fearmongering https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fearm... It's an ad hominem.
      - chimeracoder 4y ago