8 ms·

> Liver damage is a known adverse effect of both emtricitabine and tenofovir, which are extremely common antiretrovirals, an indisputable fact verifiable by any

> 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
      > In the U.S., where I am, regular liver enzyme tests are a requirement for a Truvada prescription. Incorrect. A one-time test of liver function was previously sometimes suggested before starting PrEP specifically... but not for the reason you think. And it was never required. Ongoing liver enzyme tests are neither required nor recommended. In fact, Truvada and Descovy were shown to be so safe during clinical trials that routine liver function tests are explicitly contraindicated for patients with no other comorbidities. > It's an ad hominem. Even if I were accusing you of intentionally spreading fear and misinformation, that still would not be an ad hominem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
      - torstenvl 4y ago
        > Ongoing liver enzyme tests are neither required nor recommended. You are correct. I was mistaken. > Even if I were accusing you of intentionally spreading fear and misinformation You were. That's what the word means. > that still would not be an ad hominem It would not constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It is still an ad hominem attack and is still deeply unproductive.

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
    > In the U.S., where I am, regular liver enzyme tests are a requirement for a Truvada prescription. Incorrect. A one-time test of liver function was previously sometimes suggested before starting PrEP specifically... but not for the reason you think. And it was never required. Ongoing liver enzyme tests are neither required nor recommended. In fact, Truvada and Descovy were shown to be so safe during clinical trials that routine liver function tests are explicitly contraindicated for patients with no other comorbidities. > It's an ad hominem. Even if I were accusing you of intentionally spreading fear and misinformation, that still would not be an ad hominem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      > Ongoing liver enzyme tests are neither required nor recommended. You are correct. I was mistaken. > Even if I were accusing you of intentionally spreading fear and misinformation You were. That's what the word means. > that still would not be an ad hominem It would not constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It is still an ad hominem attack and is still deeply unproductive.