A gay man explains why he's on Truvada

[novasteve]

Yes I m Still on PrEP and Yes I Still Think of It as a Godsend - Features - The Stranger

In short, becaues he wants to have sex with anyone, including people with HIV. Also readf the comments, marxists vs gays, shouting that it shouldn't be available unless everyone can afford it.

This is a $13,000 a year drug, that reduces the chances of HIV infection (and nothing else), that could be accomplished by using condoms. But that's asking too much. I think they've given up asking gay men to use condoms. Though they claim this is supposed to be used in conjunction, if you ask any gay guy, do you know any? They'll tell you that that's now what happens in reality.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Google Bug Chasing. It's sick and reveals how mental some of them really are

 

[novasteve]

He doesn't want HIV, so he's not a bug chaser. He just wants to be able to have sex with everyone, so that justifies passing $13,000 a year in costs for his medication onto others.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Google Bug Chasing. It's sick and reveals how mental some of them really are

Was gonna mention that.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It's not that bug chasers want the disease as much as to lsoe the concern about getting the disease. Like the moment before you leap out of a plane skydiving. You're deathly afraid, everything in you is saying don't do it, then when you lean, committed, too late to change your mind, you're relieved. Too late to worry about it now. Might as well enjoy it. Same with sex and bug chasers, you have it, the fear of getting it is gone.

 

[JoeB131]

I'd ask what the fuck this drug is made of that it costs $13,000.

This honestly sounds like a rich pharmacuetical company getting rich on human misery...

But you keep hating those gays, Steve.

 

[novasteve]

I'd ask what the fuck this drug is made of that it costs $13,000.

This honestly sounds like a rich pharmacuetical company getting rich on human misery...

But you keep hating those gays, Steve.

Keep hating economics and what it costs to develop a drug. Don't forget, if they just USED FUCKING Condoms these wouldn't be an issue. Now people who have illnesses like cancer, etc there's less money to go around for treatments because you think gay have a right to bareback.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'd ask what the fuck this drug is made of that it costs $13,000.

This honestly sounds like a rich pharmacuetical company getting rich on human misery...

But you keep hating those gays, Steve.

Do you understand the economics of bringing a drug to market ?

 

[novasteve]

I'd ask what the fuck this drug is made of that it costs $13,000.

This honestly sounds like a rich pharmacuetical company getting rich on human misery...

But you keep hating those gays, Steve.

Do you understand the economics of bringing a drug to market ?

He's a liberal. he doesn't understand these things, and also thinks things can be "free".. This is what the entitlment mentality does to people. He doesn't understand that if he got his way, there would be no more drugs developed because there would be no financial incentive to do it.

 

[LindaVance826]

Don't suppose this wonder drug renders the libido useless, or assures a limp dick for anyone who takes it?

 

[JoeB131]

Keep hating economics and what it costs to develop a drug. Don't forget, if they just USED FUCKING Condoms these wouldn't be an issue. Now people who have illnesses like cancer, etc there's less money to go around for treatments because you think gay have a right to bareback.

Yeah, you see, I don't buy that. I think it's more greed than actual costs. They know that gays are desperate for a cure, and are willing to milk them.

We probably need the FDA to do an audit of their production costs.

Do you understand the economics of bringing a drug to market ?

I understand Big Pharma would rip off hteir own mothers selling overpriced drugs.

He's a liberal. he doesn't understand these things, and also thinks things can be "free".. This is what the entitlment mentality does to people. He doesn't understand that if he got his way, there would be no more drugs developed because there would be no financial incentive to do it.

Why does there necessarily need to be a "financial incentive"?

When Jonas Salk found the polio vaccine, he refused to patent it, and instead made the formula available to anyone who wanted to produce it to get the vaccine out as quickly and widely as humanly possible. The world wouldn't have begrudged him wealth for his discovery, but he put humanity before his personal wealth.

The thing is, most drug research is actually funded by the government. Big Pharma just makes a profit off of it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'd ask what the fuck this drug is made of that it costs $13,000.

This honestly sounds like a rich pharmacuetical company getting rich on human misery...

But you keep hating those gays, Steve.

Do you understand the economics of bringing a drug to market ?

He's a liberal. he doesn't understand these things, and also thinks things can be "free".. This is what the entitlment mentality does to people. He doesn't understand that if he got his way, there would be no more drugs developed because there would be no financial incentive to do it.

Well, I am somewhat liberal too......but I am not far left.

There is a difference.

His response tends to reveal a disdain for our economic system. And I can understand that. Just watch infomercials and throw up !

But in this case, what you say is true....to an extent.

What I don't like is the way pharma can play off of government research (in other words, leverage tax dollars to their benefit).

That does not change the fact that people won't put together organizations to find new drugs (maybe the SCOTUS should just make HIV illegal) if there is no money to be made.

The question the OP asks is correct, even if the drug only cost $13/year. Why should others be paying for that ?

It's as much philisophical as anything.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Keep hating economics and what it costs to develop a drug. Don't forget, if they just USED FUCKING Condoms these wouldn't be an issue. Now people who have illnesses like cancer, etc there's less money to go around for treatments because you think gay have a right to bareback.

Yeah, you see, I don't buy that. I think it's more greed than actual costs. They know that gays are desperate for a cure, and are willing to milk them.

We probably need the FDA to do an audit of their production costs.

Do you understand the economics of bringing a drug to market ?

I understand Big Pharma would rip off hteir own mothers selling overpriced drugs.

He's a liberal. he doesn't understand these things, and also thinks things can be "free".. This is what the entitlment mentality does to people. He doesn't understand that if he got his way, there would be no more drugs developed because there would be no financial incentive to do it.

Why does there necessarily need to be a "financial incentive"?

When Jonas Salk found the polio vaccine, he refused to patent it, and instead made the formula available to anyone who wanted to produce it to get the vaccine out as quickly and widely as humanly possible. The world wouldn't have begrudged him wealth for his discovery, but he put humanity before his personal wealth.

The thing is, most drug research is actually funded by the government. Big Pharma just makes a profit off of it.

O.K.

I agree (to an extent) with your points.

So why doesn't the government just complete the process ?

Or you can just hope that the Jonas Salk's of the world can figure out how to manuever the maze of red tape needed to take a drug to production.

That assumes they are out there. Can you point to anyone but him. What is the ratio of drugs produced by Salks vs big pharma.

The question about government is a legitimate one. I know pharma leverages research.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Now that SCOTUS passed Obamacare and gay marriage this week, activist will require it be given free to the public. This is how liberals destroy a country.

 

[novasteve]

Better yet, think of all the medical advances that could be made if they didn't have to waste so many resources on an entirely preventable illness like HIV? It's widely known how to not spread it. use condoms, don't share needles. yet so much time money and effort is spent on it, while cancer, malaria, etc should have those resources.

 

[novasteve]

Now that SCOTUS passed Obamacare and gay marriage this week, activist will require it be given free to the public. This is how liberals destroy a country.

That's absolutely going to happen. Remember that gays cannot be charged more for insurance, passing on all that extra cost to insure them onto others. And they will demand and get a copayless truvada. They are already raising holy hell about it being on the formulary's highest tier (meaning highest copayment class). So they will get a copayment less truvada, while people who need chemotherapy, anti biotics to fight off an i infection, w ill need to pay a copay.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I don't care if big Pharma would rip off their mothers.

If they don't exist...who finds the drugs.

What is the history of drug research in the world ? I cant' find articles, but I did some looking ten years or so ago.

Most research migrated to the U.S. (even for foreign firms) because it was to costly in places like Europe.

At the same time, places like Canada have cheap prices (this was per a Saturday Evening Post article from 12 years ago) because they use previous generation drugs from the U.S. (slow down the approval process and wait for patents to expire).

It's as clear as mud.

 

[JoeB131]

O.K.

I agree (to an extent) with your points.

So why doesn't the government just complete the process ?

Or you can just hope that the Jonas Salk's of the world can figure out how to manuever the maze of red tape needed to take a drug to production.

That assumes they are out there. Can you point to anyone but him. What is the ratio of drugs produced by Salks vs big pharma.

The question about government is a legitimate one. I know pharma leverages research.

I think you can make an argument the FDA puts too much red tape in getting drugs to market.

BUT....

How many drugs did the FDA approve that later turned out were dangerous, despite all the rigorous testing? Redux and Phen-Fen come to mind.

 

[JoeB131]

Better yet, think of all the medical advances that could be made if they didn't have to waste so many resources on an entirely preventable illness like HIV? It's widely known how to not spread it. use condoms, don't share needles. yet so much time money and effort is spent on it, while cancer, malaria, etc should have those resources.

why limit that to HIV. Think of all the time we could save if we weren't doing heart medications for all those guys who like to eat red meat and fatty foods. The account for far more deaths than HIV does and frankly, they could be prevented if you ate your veggies and got your fat ass to the gym more often.

But, hey, let's take another couple- SUicides and assaults with Firearms... THey kill a lot of people, and think of all the money we waste on trauma centers when we could just ban guns!!!!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

O.K.

I agree (to an extent) with your points.

So why doesn't the government just complete the process ?

Or you can just hope that the Jonas Salk's of the world can figure out how to manuever the maze of red tape needed to take a drug to production.

That assumes they are out there. Can you point to anyone but him. What is the ratio of drugs produced by Salks vs big pharma.

The question about government is a legitimate one. I know pharma leverages research.

I think you can make an argument the FDA puts too much red tape in getting drugs to market.

BUT....

How many drugs did the FDA approve that later turned out were dangerous, despite all the rigorous testing? Redux and Phen-Fen come to mind.

So, why doesn't government complete the process ?

Simple question.

If pharma is just raking it in on the backend.....?

I don't like the drugs can be so costly too.

But I also know that cancer was pretty much your end even 50 years ago.

The truth is in there somewhere.