4 ms·

> 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 req

> 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

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.