In New Study of PrEP Users, No One Got HIV In Three Years

As a new counter-argument to all the PrEP naysayers, including AHF’s Michael Weinstein — whose adherence to condoms only, now and forever, borders on the pathological — a new study out of San Francisco that followed PrEP users in a real-world setting over three years found no new HIV infections among any of them.

The study followed 657 sexually active people over 32 months, 99 percent of whom being men who have sex with men (most of whom likely identify as gay), with the average length of Truvada use seven and a half months. The average of participants: 37. After a year, 50 percent of the participants reported getting at least one sexually transmitted disease, but not HIV, as the SF Chronicle reports.

This was conducted at the San Francisco Kaiser hospital.

The study found a decrease in condom use (obviously), however many of the study participants (51 percent) reported no change in their use of condoms. 41 percent reported that they were using condoms less often.

Interestingly, the vast majority, 74 percent, said there was no change in the number of sexual partners they had over the course of the 32 months, and only 11 percent reported they’d been more slutty, and saw an increase in sexual partners.

This is great news, especially considering the number of naysayers who argued that Truvada had only seen one small clinical trial, and we had yet to see its effectiveness in a real-world setting.

There was of course no control group in this study, and it’s impossible to say whether the drug is 99 or 100 percent effective in preventing HIV infection, as some medical professionals have suggested. But the clinical trial concluded that it was “shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection in people who are at high risk by up to 92 percent when taken consistently,” which has been accepted by the Centers for Disease Control.

16 thoughts on “In New Study of PrEP Users, No One Got HIV In Three Years”

  1. “whose adherence to condoms only, now and forever, borders on the pathological …”

    Forgive my blunt insult but hear me out: are you fucking stupid?

    The reason for condom use is that people like yourself, apparently, have such a laser focus on HIV that you cannot recall that there are things like Hepatitis C, syphilis, etc. that are just as dangerous.

    But even more so, this “pathological” condom insistence instead protects all of the gay community so that the NEXT time a blood-borne, sexually transmitted disease strikes, the gay community will be protected. And there will be a next time. History bears me out on this.

    And just for the record, I’m a physician. I treat this kind of stuff every day. So yeah, I do know what I’m talking about and yeah, I am pontificating so that maybe the next moron posting an ignorant, self-indulgent comment like someone’s focus on overall good health (ie, “pathological” condom use) will think twice.

    You embarrass your community when you make ignorant, poorly-informed statements like these. Individuals like yourself were the ones in the 80s saying there wasn’t a problem and that everyone should just keep having
    unprotected sex.

    Thanks for listening.

  2. I will say this much: that it was a study meant that none of the subjects had to pick up the tab for the PrEP medications, right?

    That seems to be the thing that people are discussing the least: the expense of it all.

  3. Another side to all this is keeping our eyes on the horizon. Today, no problems from Truvada but 5 minutes watching TV and you’ll hear countless ads for people who took _____ medication and ‘now have complications’. I just REALLY hope Truvada isn’t the next drug that causes neurological problems, or muscle weakness or cancer or….. it’s just such a huge game of trust in a giant company with little concern for well being and a LOT of concern for profit. And I too do not want other STDs. This is progress, lets hope it’s not a problem down the line.

  4. Truvada is a terrible drug. What it does is it Lowers the viral load to an UNDETECTABLE level, the risk of transmission from someone who is on treatment and has an undetectable viral load subtly less risky than having sex with someone not on treatment and/or whose viral load is detectable.

    Remember that viral load tests based on the amount of virus in BLOOD, which may differ from the amount of virus in semen. Viral load can also fluctuate day to day and even from morning to night. If your partner contracts an STI, such as syphilis, it can cause their viral load to spike unexpectedly.

    I would like to see another study where the researchers follow up on the viral load of the same participants but in this study they are to discontinue the medication and sexual activities for 6-12 months. I can only postulate and assume that the guys who recently got infected during the study written in this article but tested false negative due to low viral low will have higher viral load manifest once off the medication.

    We have to remember that this is a virus ( a non living organism) that we really can’t eliminate, and to encourage this aberrant behavior that it’s ok to have sex without a condom or desensitize the infected as not worrisome/risky will only lead to a growing number of HIV infections (with normal viral load/undetectable viral load).

  5. Great, No one got HIV but I have follow up questions.
    1) How many of them had sex with a HIV+ person.
    2) was it bareback or condom with the HIV+ person
    3) Were they bottoms tops or vers
    4) did the bottoms allow the top to cum inside them and vice versa
    5) where they taking any drugs such as weed and poppers (yes poppers is a drug)
    6) Will truvada, like some antibiotics, become ineffective with overuse

    I agree, this a great news and great step forward, but let me know in 10 years what these results say. Better yet, show me the data on this 3 year report.

    1. All great questions. Seems like the jury is still out when it comes to what is really safer sex. I sure won’t have anal sex without a condom.

      1. I have a rule about bareback sex and it’s the same regardless of if Im with a man or a woman.

        we use condoms everytime until 3 years or marriage (preferably) marriage. Bareback is the most intimate connection a couple can make. and while I’d never do the open or polyamorous bullshit. I’d definitely never do bareback if we aren’t monogamous. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

  6. Great news indeed, but before we all go bareback, can you expand more about “After a year, 50 percent of the participants reported getting at least one sexually transmitted disease, but not HIV”

    I don’t want to get ANY std, because some of those diseases can also have “impactful” consequences to one’s health.

    Lastly, there is not a pharmaceutical product on the market without negative some side effects to at least a small percentage of the users. Was that measured by this study as well, or was it outside its scope?

    1. >>can you expand more about “After a year, 50 percent of the participants reported getting at least one sexually transmitted disease, but not HIV”<<

      It doesn't require expanding. Truvada is meant to prevent HIV not other STDs. If you want to make the case for condom use with Truvada, that's where you make it, other STDs but the question of Truvada preventing HIV transmission has been answered.

      1. Jacknasty you’re not very bright, that never was a question to begin with, Al the studies have proven Truvada works the issue here was barebacking and preventing sti’s. And as the reports show more people went bareback, and more people got sti’s. Because that 50 percent number is important. HPV can cause cancer, and it’s not the only sti that can lead to death. The Misconception due to lack of education is that HIV kills, it doesn’t. So immune system is so weak other things kill you from AiDS.

        So your attempt at trying to deflect the conversation is sad. If you are going to highlight the report highlight the whole thing.

        To the sword for that picture posted with the report, you should be ashamed of yourself.

  7. This is great news. Are the makers of Truvada still saying that their product should be used in conjunction with condoms and not in place of condoms?

    1. mr. Pam Gaypornmama

      Surprisingly Gilead, the makers of Truvada, have not done any official advertising for Truvada as PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis). I recently saw an ad in LA gay mag (forgetting the name) from Gilead and it said something like – some of our medicines may help in the prevention of HIV. You can tell it was an ad for Truvada for PrEP without actually saying it. They’re letting the doctors, non-profits, FDA and users themselves promote the drug…. interesting huh?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 50 MB. You can upload: image. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Discover more from TheSword.com

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top