FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (or PrEP)

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Apparently reduces the risk of contracting HIV by 90% from unprotected sex when taken consistently.

It currently costs about £500 for a months course.

Should the NHS provide this and effectively subsidised dangerously reckless sexual activities specifically within the gay community?

Or should everyone have access as a preventative measure?

Would it spawn a new barebacking generation and increase the infection rate of other StIs?

The gay lobby seems to get what ever they want so watch this space and prepare for prep.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

We've discussed this a few times before.

Its protection rate can be substantially higher than 90% btw. Infection rates in places like San Francisco have diminished.

It should be available on the NHS, with them negotiating a price, as the life long HIV treatment costs are massive - the price of Truvada is miniscule in comparison. As such, it would be wise use of funds as well as a humane approach.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"...

Would it spawn a new barebacking generation and increase the infection rate of other StIs?

The gay lobby seems to get what ever they want so watch this space and prepare for prep

"

The evidence from many research trials is that barebacking doesn't increase, so it's worthwhile sticking with the facts, rather than jumping onto a Channel 5 or Daily Express shock horror, it's a sex scandal line.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"We've discussed this a few times before.

Its protection rate can be substantially higher than 90% btw. Infection rates in places like San Francisco have diminished.

It should be available on the NHS, with them negotiating a price, as the life long HIV treatment costs are massive - the price of Truvada is miniscule in comparison. As such, it would be wise use of funds as well as a humane approach."

Don't worry, it wont be long if the "gay lobby" always get what they want....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire


"Apparently reduces the risk of contracting HIV by 90% from unprotected sex when taken consistently.

It currently costs about £500 for a months course.

Should the NHS provide this and effectively subsidised dangerously reckless sexual activities specifically within the gay community?

Or should everyone have access as a preventative measure?

Would it spawn a new barebacking generation and increase the infection rate of other StIs?

The gay lobby seems to get what ever they want so watch this space and prepare for prep."

You've rather ruined your chances of a balanced debate by your final paragraph, which smacks of bigotry.

I don't know the relevant costs of treating HIV vs preventing it, but I have confidence that these decisions are made by people who do.

It would seem sensible to fund the most cost-effective preventative measures, but that would appear to be condoms. Though again, it is better that that decision is taken by experts, not me.

Mr ddc

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Health economics would suggest it's worth it, but, cash strapped health authorities only look at the unit cost. Can't see GP's spunking (pardon the pun) their budgets on this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


" Don't worry, it wont be long if the "gay lobby" always get what they want.... "

I'm sure there are elements of homophobia that are holding it back from being provided.

Even in a country, such as the USA, with private health care insurance, PREP is being provided pretty much as standard to people who are in at risk groups.

Our chancellor should be ashamed for not insisting that money is provided for this treatment, due to the very clear cost benefit analysis that can be seen when comparing prevention costs (this drug) versus life long treatment for HIV infection.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orkie321bWoman
over a year ago

Nottingham

Safe sex is the most effective protection against HIV.

Why should the NHS fund this medicine for people who are reckless and choose to take risks when it won't/can't fund life saving cancer treatments.

People should take responsibility for their own health and well being. If they don't want to wear condoms and want to take this medicine instead they should fucking pay for it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

The problem this country has faced has been that preventative healthcare was not seen as the responsibility of the NHS, which was why they initially rejected this treatment option.

It's one of a range of treatments, current or in the pipeline.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

A quick check and found that the current UK cost of treating HIV is £360,000.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ty31Man
over a year ago

NW London

Based on the above arguments the NHS should not fund it given that condoms are widely and freely available. Especially seeing as the NHS is unable to provide life prolonging or enhancing drugs to treat serious illnesses.

People need to be responsible for their own health, their actions and consequences.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

1. The CDC whom have conducted the most region give a 90% figure.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html

2. I do not read the Daily Express, Daily Mail nor watch Channel 5 news.

3. It is not bigotry to voice an opinion.

4. Proponents quote statistics and cost analysis. Surely condoms are much more cost effective preventative measure not to mention statistically safer than the CDC guidance.

5. Lets spend NHS money on patients who deserve the expenditure.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orkie321bWoman
over a year ago

Nottingham

My mum has a form of multiple sclerosis for which there is only one medicine that relieves symptoms. This medicine is not available on the NHS. She can get it privately at a cost of £400 per month.

It really boils my piss that she can't have the medicine she needs because it's too expensive for her to buy being an OAP but someone who can't be arsed to wear a condom may be given prep free of charge.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire


"Safe sex is the most effective protection against HIV.

Why should the NHS fund this medicine for people who are reckless and choose to take risks when it won't/can't fund life saving cancer treatments.

People should take responsibility for their own health and well being. If they don't want to wear condoms and want to take this medicine instead they should fucking pay for it."

That's true to an extent, but you could say the same about people who are overweight.

Although obviously I wouldn't,

not after last night...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"1. The CDC whom have conducted the most region give a 90% figure.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html

2. I do not read the Daily Express, Daily Mail nor watch Channel 5 news.

3. It is not bigotry to voice an opinion.

4. Proponents quote statistics and cost analysis. Surely condoms are much more cost effective preventative measure not to mention statistically safer than the CDC guidance.

5. Lets spend NHS money on patients who deserve the expenditure.

"

"It's not bigotry to voice an opinion"...

You couldn't make it up....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire


"

3. It is not bigotry to voice an opinion.

"
agreed, but
"The gay lobby seems to get what ever they want"
seemed unnecessarily inflammatory imho

The rest I've already covered.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"A quick check and found that the current UK cost of treating HIV is £360,000. "

I should have stated that as the average cost for a person's lifetime of HIV treatment.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"

3. It is not bigotry to voice an opinion.

agreed, but The gay lobby seems to get what ever they want seemed unnecessarily inflammatory imho

The rest I've already covered. "

Agreed?

Don't you think it rather depends on the opinion being voiced?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orkie321bWoman
over a year ago

Nottingham


"Safe sex is the most effective protection against HIV.

Why should the NHS fund this medicine for people who are reckless and choose to take risks when it won't/can't fund life saving cancer treatments.

People should take responsibility for their own health and well being. If they don't want to wear condoms and want to take this medicine instead they should fucking pay for it.

That's true to an extent, but you could say the same about people who are overweight.

Although obviously I wouldn't,

not after last night... "

You wouldn't?

I think you just did!

Also it is now common practice for overweight people to be refused the surgery they need

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ubbykittenWoman
over a year ago

Kent

Firstly , let me start by saying I don't know very much about this medication. However, I wonder if it's uses go beyond the individuals who some say 'can't be bothered' to wear a condom.

Maybe they CAN be bothered but perhaps their partner is HIV + and this reduces their chances of contracting the virus further especially with oral sex?

I also wonder if it has a role for heterosexual couples who wish to conceive but where one partner is HIV+?

I ask these questions in all ignorance as I don't know much about the uses of this medication. All I will say is £500 per month is not very much compared to the cost of some medications and when offset against the cost financially, physically and psychologically of contracting the HIV virus, it can only be a good thing?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire


"

3. It is not bigotry to voice an opinion.

agreed, but The gay lobby seems to get what ever they want seemed unnecessarily inflammatory imho

The rest I've already covered.

Agreed?

Don't you think it rather depends on the opinion being voiced?"

Technically not.

Bigotry is not having a different opinion, no matter how wrong it may seem, bigotry is showing intolerance towards others opinions. I felt he implied this in the last paragraph.

Besides I'm trying to be careful how I word things

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ubbykittenWoman
over a year ago

Kent


"My mum has a form of multiple sclerosis for which there is only one medicine that relieves symptoms. This medicine is not available on the NHS. She can get it privately at a cost of £400 per month.

It really boils my piss that she can't have the medicine she needs because it's too expensive for her to buy being an OAP but someone who can't be arsed to wear a condom may be given prep free of charge.

"

I am not sure if I totally agree when you say the medication is used for those who can't be bothered to wear a condom but I don't know enough about the medication. However I wanted to say how terribly sad I am to read about your mum's medication not being available on the NHS. That is a crime and I totally understand why you would feel angry.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"My mum has a form of multiple sclerosis for which there is only one medicine that relieves symptoms. This medicine is not available on the NHS. She can get it privately at a cost of £400 per month.

It really boils my piss that she can't have the medicine she needs because it's too expensive for her to buy being an OAP but someone who can't be arsed to wear a condom may be given prep free of charge.

"

This PREP treatment isn't being provided free of charge to anyone in the UK, except those who were involved in the clinical trials, funded by the drug developer. There are always cost benefit analyses that are undertaken, whenever potential expenditure is reviewed. Financially the cost of this medication is hugely beneficial to the NHS, because it WILL prevent people getting HIV. And each of those people who would have caught HIV could probably have infected others. Keeping it simple, just the cost of £360,000 for one person who gets infected with HIV whilst we don't prescribe this, is massive, compared with the tiny cost of PREP - in comparison.

I feel for anyone who's not able to get the treatment that could be made available. But I also believe that we need to take the sex out of this debate, because it emotionally distorts reasonable discussion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

3. It is not bigotry to voice an opinion.

agreed, but The gay lobby seems to get what ever they want seemed unnecessarily inflammatory imho

The rest I've already covered. "

Agreed?

Don't you think it rather depends on the opinion being voiced?

Its this new thing people whom disagree with an alternative perspective label it offensive or bigotry.

It honestly not bigoted to state that a well funded gay lobby movement exists. Its also not bigoted to suggest that such groups are aggressively lobbying parliament to press for this drug to be delivered on the NHS.

Its called a Fact!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire


"Safe sex is the most effective protection against HIV.

Why should the NHS fund this medicine for people who are reckless and choose to take risks when it won't/can't fund life saving cancer treatments.

People should take responsibility for their own health and well being. If they don't want to wear condoms and want to take this medicine instead they should fucking pay for it.

That's true to an extent, but you could say the same about people who are overweight.

Although obviously I wouldn't,

not after last night...

You wouldn't?

I think you just did!

Also it is now common practice for overweight people to be refused the surgery they need"

I don't think that is quite true. But I was simply trying to draw a parallel. I felt I couldn't choose smokers since I thought they paid their way on tobacco taxes and reduced pensions

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orkie321bWoman
over a year ago

Nottingham


"But I also believe that we need to take the sex out of this debate, because it emotionally distorts reasonable discussion. "

I don't see how you can remove sex from the debate - HIV is primarily a sexually transmitted infection.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire


"It honestly not bigoted to state that a well funded gay lobby movement exists. Its also not bigoted to suggest that such groups are aggressively lobbying parliament to press for this drug to be delivered on the NHS.

Its called a Fact!"

If you check my definition, I think you'll find "you're wrong, FACT" meets it perfectly...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bony_EpistemologyCouple
over a year ago

21 Hump Street

I'm just here to see who is barebacking lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Im happy to be called wrong.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

Saying "fact" at the end of a statement makes it irrefutable Fact.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"But I also believe that we need to take the sex out of this debate, because it emotionally distorts reasonable discussion.

I don't see how you can remove sex from the debate - HIV is primarily a sexually transmitted infection. "

HIV is primarily, but not exclusively, transmitted during sex. My position is largely a financial one - the sums add up so heavily in favour of provision of PREP that it's madness not to prescribe it. Public Health England HIV in the UK – Situation Report 2015 – Incidence, prevalence and prevention states that every day 8 people are getting infected with HIV.

Each newly infected person could potentially infect others. Just those 8 people infected in one day will cost 8 x £360,000. And the retail - not wholesale NHS cost - is considerably less than that. We're either going to be spending the money treating people for life or we could avoid it, as other countries now have, by provision of PREP treatment. The range and costs of PREP treatments is also likely diminish, especially as higher volumes of people are treated.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Someone that I worked with - my best friend - was HIV positive but didn't tell me for a long time: there was no reason that they should have felt obliged to. The HIV treatments didn't prevent their death and I've been a passionate believer in wanting to stop this horrible disease from blighting the lives of others ever since.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire


"Im happy to be called wrong. "

I can't even help you there

I'm happy to stick with my original "I'd rather leave it to the experts"

(which isn't 'the government' actually, but NICE)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I would rather someone didn't catch HIV and not be able to pass it to others.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I belive i only referenced the NHS, CDC and official data. I never stated 'the government'. FYI NICE test the safety and efficiency of pharmaceuticals. They do not set public health policy or design moral and practical obligations, the government does.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I hope that these treatments get introduced into the UK and other places, similarly to here in the USA and others. They're changing the world for the better, making phenomenal cuts to new infection rates, which are now closer to zero in some places.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top