I often use the same legal mechanism to buy modafinil, and have reached out to my supplier about affiliating. They don't do it either. I have to wonder if there's some kind of risk or law working against them.
Modafinil is Schedule IV in the US. The law may or may not be enforced with respect with to Modafinil, but possessing that drug without a prescription is illegal.
It was sad to see he's still struggling financially. Of course he isn't in this for the money but he's selling potentially 12,000 * £50 of medicine per month and sleeping on friends couches...
Edit: Actually, having clicked the link it certainly looks like he's making money now. Well done to him.
Presumably because the UK only allows imports for personal use. It's a shame he didn't (or couldn't) get financial support from an HIV or LGBT charity.
A few things I'm curious about, though. Did anyone think it was weird that BuzzFeed was the only media organization granted entry to the meetings HIV organizations had to fight the NHS decision not to provide prep? And I wonder if Greg put ads on his site if it would help him cover his costs. The guy deserves some help. I see there's a donate button (HINT HINT EVERYONE), so that's nice. :)
> “I’m thinking, ‘You don’t know I have to walk sometimes because I can’t afford my Oyster [the London bus and tube pass]. You don’t know that I’m literally eating once a day because I’m so broke, and I’m sleeping on someone’s sofa because no one is going to pay me to do this,’” he says. “I am no different to how I was when I was a sex worker.”
I'm a 30-something gay dude on PREP. I primarily take it because I'm in a sero-discordant relationship with my boyfriend who is HIV+, but also as a safety precaution for when I was single and hooking up.
PREP has the potential to completely turn the tide on HIV infections. I live in a mid-sized midwestern city where between 10 and 25% of gay dudes in my dating pool are HIV+, many of them unknowingly and therefore continuing to spread it. There is a big push from the local public health department to get gay guys at risk of contracting HIV on PREP and it is starting to pay off.
PREP also is helping reduce the stigma of having HIV. Many people who are HIV+ live with a huge mental health burden of dealing with feeling like they are going to be rejected as a romantic partner because of their HIV status. With PREP as an option this helps reduce that burden. I'm not necessarily proud of this but I'm not sure if I would be dating my current boyfriend if PREP were not available because of the risk it could present to my health. He's an amazing guy and having this issue out of the way for us has been very helpful for us.
That's not to say that it doesn't have side effects and that it should be carefully considered but it really needs to be publicized more as a preventative treatment option in high risk populations.
I really wish more people knew about PEP as well. It seems equally important (in both the gay and straight communities), but it seems to get even less publicity than PrEP
Definitely. PEP, which for people who aren't familiar with it is a course of drugs which can be taken within 72 hours of a potential exposure to HIV to prevent becoming infected with HIV. It's not 100% effective, but it is an important tool to prevent the spread of HIV.
> I'm not necessarily proud of this but I'm not sure if I would be dating my current boyfriend if PREP were not available because of the risk it could present to my health.
Personally, I don't think that's a sentiment to be proud of or ashamed of. It's a practical reaction to the lay of the land. I hope you don't beat yourself up about it.
HIV testing needs to be a part of the annual physical check up, just like blood sugar testing for diabetes. Hep A/B/C testing should be as well. If I was forced to be infected with HIV or HepC, I would take HIV over HepC. C is some nasty shiat and there is no vaccine unlike the A and B varieties.
About 2% of men are HIV positive. So just blindly using 1/4 you get 1/200 people are HIV positive. Assuming that the place discussed is a little bit above average, and you get a number that is consistent with the population having a 1 in 300 HIV rate.
The CDC reports that in 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections and that MSM who had a history of recreational drug injection accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. Among the approximately 784,701 people living with an HIV diagnosis, 396,810 (51%) were MSM. About 48% of MSM living with an HIV diagnosis were white, 30% were black, and 19% were Hispanic or Latino. Although the majority of MSM are white, non-whites accounted for 54% of new infections HIV related MSM infections in 2008.[7] A recent study estimated that for every 100,000 MSM, 692 will be diagnosed with HIV. This makes MSM 60 times more likely to contract the virus than other men and 54 times more likely than women
The real issue is simply that the cost for Truvada oral tablet (100 mg-150 mg) is around $1,564 for a supply of 30 tablets. In the US, the patents expire in 2021.
No, $1,564 is the price when bought through US pharma. They're available via the site recommended by https://www.iwantprepnow.co.uk/buy-prep-now for $80. So, presumably the cost is more like $20 or so.
What makes you think this spammy affiliate marketing site is sending you to online pharmacies that will actually send you the drug, rather than take your money and send you nothing?
This "spammy affiliate marketing site" is neither spammy, nor does affiliate marketing. It saves hundreds, if not thousands of lives. Read the linked article.
There was some confusion about who should be paying for this preventative treatment. Both sexual health and prevention is normally part of Public Health and not the NHS, but public health weren't paying. This is because funding to local authorities has been slashed. Remember this when conservative supporters tell you that funding for health care has increased: they're not including the cuts to public health.
There was some confusion about who should be paying for this preventative treatment.
This is the part I really don't understand. I suppose its a consequence of big bureaucracies.
This is a clear case of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". It is so much cheaper to pay for the PrEP than to pay for treatment of HIV.
And in the UK the HIV treatment is "free", i.e. part of their national healthcare, right? So wouldn't it make so much sense for them to flood the country with PrEP, giving it at very low cost to anyone who expresses an interest?
Firstly, this is only for England. Health is devolved in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Preventative stuff and a lot of sexual health stuff (STD screening, free contraception) is paid for by "Public Health", which is part of local government.
Treatment is paid for by the NHS, which is sort of nationally funded by NHS England to local Clinical Commissioning Groups.
Sometimes you'll have "joint commissioning" -- for example in Gloucestershire there's joint commissioning across public health and the NHS for Mental Health.
But yes, it's stupid bureaucracy and budget holding and it's caused harm.
From the way the article exalts Owen--an HIV+ former dug addict and male prostitute--you'd think he's worthy of the Victoria Cross.
Since the discovery of its aetiology three decades ago, HIV/AIDS has been an almost entirely preventable disease. Gay men and intravenous drug users (who account for almost all new infections in the US and UK) simply acting responsibly for once would have long marked it for eradication--at least in the developed world. That these people continue to infect themselves, even to the present day, is shameful, especially in light of the obscene amounts of money HIV research diverts from worthier causes, such as pediatric cancer or Alzheimer's.
These people are not heroes and deserve to be shamed at least as much as oxygen tank-toting chain smokers who gave themselves Emphysema.
You can take that view on any number of issues: "It'll get better when these people get their act together". The problem is, you'll never see the day when that happens, so proper allocation of blame is completely beside the point. If, on the other hand, you stop trying to figure out who deserves to be helped, you can actually make a difference.
Only because political correctness prevents us from shaming those newly infected with HIV. Instead they're victims who deserve our unconditional sympathy.
Is shame especially effective at preventing irrational behavior? Is there anything in your life you would be doing differently if you were a 100% rational agent with unlimited willpower? If so, do you ever feel ashamed when you fall short?
Do you think it's simply a coincidence that both divorce and out-of-wedlock births have become so much more common as they've become so much less stigmatized?
Both divorce and out-of-wedlock births (and sexually transmitted infections) are highest, in the U.S., within the southern evangelical communities that most readily practice exactly the sort of shaming and stigmatizing you're talking about.
Here's a study that found "Increased religiosity in residents of states in the U.S. strongly predicted a higher teen birth rate.... With data aggregated at the state level, conservative religious beliefs strongly predict U.S. teen birth rates, in a relationship that does not appear to be the result of confounding by income or abortion rates. One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception."
I didn't answer that question because I'm less certain that I know what I'm talking about. Sure, shame motivates. Maybe fear of shame could even be called a strong motivator? I don't know. Is it "especially" effective? Maybe. Compared to what? I feel like you could answer that with some experiments and better, more precise definitions.
I didn't write the foregoing at first because it's a pretty boring answer. To contrast, your last two questions are in essence asking if I could be a better person. That's a no-brained.
Last time I checked on my insurance it was going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1K/mo for PrEP. Now minimums would be met soon enough but still way too expensive. The website mentioned in the article appears to sell it for ~$54/mo which is crazy.
"In the space of 12 months, the number of gay men in London being diagnosed with HIV had dropped by 40%. Across England it was down by a third."
The New Scientist article they link to has it correct -- this is a drop in reported new infections, not a drop in infected persons. It still hasn't been corrected.
One consequence of gay organizations deciding to focus all of their energies on punishing rubes in flyover country via gay marriage campaigns has been a significant de-emphasis on HIV education / treatment / prevention. The latter has actually done us significant amounts of good and it's a shame to see it wasted in favor of spite.
56 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 148 ms ] threadhttps://www.iwantprepnow.co.uk/buy-prep-now
Edit: Actually, having clicked the link it certainly looks like he's making money now. Well done to him.
A few things I'm curious about, though. Did anyone think it was weird that BuzzFeed was the only media organization granted entry to the meetings HIV organizations had to fight the NHS decision not to provide prep? And I wonder if Greg put ads on his site if it would help him cover his costs. The guy deserves some help. I see there's a donate button (HINT HINT EVERYONE), so that's nice. :)
I've emailed offering to help out if I can. Their costs of running the site should be zero to them, if I can help make that so then great.
https://www.iwantprepnow.co.uk/about-us-donate
> “I’m thinking, ‘You don’t know I have to walk sometimes because I can’t afford my Oyster [the London bus and tube pass]. You don’t know that I’m literally eating once a day because I’m so broke, and I’m sleeping on someone’s sofa because no one is going to pay me to do this,’” he says. “I am no different to how I was when I was a sex worker.”
Just fyi. This does not mean that you should not donate.
PREP has the potential to completely turn the tide on HIV infections. I live in a mid-sized midwestern city where between 10 and 25% of gay dudes in my dating pool are HIV+, many of them unknowingly and therefore continuing to spread it. There is a big push from the local public health department to get gay guys at risk of contracting HIV on PREP and it is starting to pay off.
PREP also is helping reduce the stigma of having HIV. Many people who are HIV+ live with a huge mental health burden of dealing with feeling like they are going to be rejected as a romantic partner because of their HIV status. With PREP as an option this helps reduce that burden. I'm not necessarily proud of this but I'm not sure if I would be dating my current boyfriend if PREP were not available because of the risk it could present to my health. He's an amazing guy and having this issue out of the way for us has been very helpful for us.
That's not to say that it doesn't have side effects and that it should be carefully considered but it really needs to be publicized more as a preventative treatment option in high risk populations.
Personally, I don't think that's a sentiment to be proud of or ashamed of. It's a practical reaction to the lay of the land. I hope you don't beat yourself up about it.
The CDC reports that in 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections and that MSM who had a history of recreational drug injection accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. Among the approximately 784,701 people living with an HIV diagnosis, 396,810 (51%) were MSM. About 48% of MSM living with an HIV diagnosis were white, 30% were black, and 19% were Hispanic or Latino. Although the majority of MSM are white, non-whites accounted for 54% of new infections HIV related MSM infections in 2008.[7] A recent study estimated that for every 100,000 MSM, 692 will be diagnosed with HIV. This makes MSM 60 times more likely to contract the virus than other men and 54 times more likely than women
There was some confusion about who should be paying for this preventative treatment. Both sexual health and prevention is normally part of Public Health and not the NHS, but public health weren't paying. This is because funding to local authorities has been slashed. Remember this when conservative supporters tell you that funding for health care has increased: they're not including the cuts to public health.
This is explained a bit here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/2016/11/update-on-prep/
A statement from public health: http://www.adph.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ADPH-PrEP-...
A statement from earlier NHS: https://www.england.nhs.uk/2016/08/august-update-on-the-comm...
This is the part I really don't understand. I suppose its a consequence of big bureaucracies.
This is a clear case of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". It is so much cheaper to pay for the PrEP than to pay for treatment of HIV.
And in the UK the HIV treatment is "free", i.e. part of their national healthcare, right? So wouldn't it make so much sense for them to flood the country with PrEP, giving it at very low cost to anyone who expresses an interest?
Firstly, this is only for England. Health is devolved in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Preventative stuff and a lot of sexual health stuff (STD screening, free contraception) is paid for by "Public Health", which is part of local government.
Treatment is paid for by the NHS, which is sort of nationally funded by NHS England to local Clinical Commissioning Groups.
Sometimes you'll have "joint commissioning" -- for example in Gloucestershire there's joint commissioning across public health and the NHS for Mental Health.
But yes, it's stupid bureaucracy and budget holding and it's caused harm.
Since the discovery of its aetiology three decades ago, HIV/AIDS has been an almost entirely preventable disease. Gay men and intravenous drug users (who account for almost all new infections in the US and UK) simply acting responsibly for once would have long marked it for eradication--at least in the developed world. That these people continue to infect themselves, even to the present day, is shameful, especially in light of the obscene amounts of money HIV research diverts from worthier causes, such as pediatric cancer or Alzheimer's.
These people are not heroes and deserve to be shamed at least as much as oxygen tank-toting chain smokers who gave themselves Emphysema.
Only because political correctness prevents us from shaming those newly infected with HIV. Instead they're victims who deserve our unconditional sympathy.
I was skeptical, but yeah that looks pretty much true for divorce in the Midwest / South (in 2000), at least:
https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/original-data/coun...
https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articl...
I didn't write the foregoing at first because it's a pretty boring answer. To contrast, your last two questions are in essence asking if I could be a better person. That's a no-brained.
Surely you mean, rather than come back with a logically worked-out refutation, you ban accounts that don't conform with the editors mindset.
"In the space of 12 months, the number of gay men in London being diagnosed with HIV had dropped by 40%. Across England it was down by a third."
The New Scientist article they link to has it correct -- this is a drop in reported new infections, not a drop in infected persons. It still hasn't been corrected.