#PrEP HIV

[fidicushiv]

Call : +917997101303 | Whatsapp : https://wa.me/917997101505 | Website : https://fidicus.com

ఎక్కువ మందితో ప్రొటెక్షన్ లేకుండా కలుస్తున్నారా? Unprotected Sex | HIV AIDS PrEp Treatment Cure

Stay protected from HIV infection even when engaging in sex with multiple unknown partners by using PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis) treatment. This YouTube video explains how PrEP effectively reduces the risk of HIV transmission when taken consistently. Learn about the importance of regular medical consultations, proper condom use, and adherence to the medication. Stay informed and safeguard your health with these essential prevention strategies.

Dr. Bharadwaz | HIV AIDS | Health & Fitness | Homeopathy, Medicine & Surgery | Clinical Research

#PrEP #HIVPrevention #SafeSex #SexualHealth #hivawareness

#DrBharadwaz #Helseform #Fidicus #Clingenious

#ClingeniousHealth #HelseformFitness #FidicusHomeopathy #ClingeniousResearch

#FidicusHIV #HIV #AIDS #HumanImmunodeficiencyViruses #AcquiredImmuneDeficiencySyndrome

#Treatment #Cure #Prevent #Relieve #Medicine #Vaccine

#AlternativeTherapy #AdjuvantTherapy #AlternativeMedicine #AlternativeSystem

Specialty Clinic Fidicus HIV highest success with homeopathy Improve Wellness | Increase Longevity | Addresses Questions

[reasonsforhope]

"A large clinical trial in South Africa and Uganda has shown that a twice-yearly injection of a new pre-exposure prophylaxis drug gives young women total protection from HIV infection.

The trial tested whether the six-month injection of lenacapavir would provide better protection against HIV infection than two other drugs, both daily pills. All three medications are pre-exposure prophylaxis (or PrEP) drugs.

Physician-scientist Linda-Gail Bekker, principal investigator for the South African part of the study, tells Nadine Dreyer what makes this breakthough so significant and what to expect next.

Tell us about the trial and what it set out to achieve

The Purpose 1 trial with 5,000 participants took place at three sites in Uganda and 25 sites in South Africa to test the efficacy of lenacapavir and two other drugs.

Lenacapavir (Len LA) is a fusion capside inhibitor. It interferes with the HIV capsid, a protein shell that protects HIV’s genetic material and enzymes needed for replication. It is administered just under the skin, once every six months.

The randomised controlled trial, sponsored by the drug developers Gilead Sciences, tested several things.

The first was whether a six-monthly injection of lenacapavir was safe and would provide better protection against HIV infection as PrEP for women between the ages of 16 and 25 years than Truvada F/TDF, a daily PrEP pill in wide use that has been available for more than a decade.

Secondly, the trial also tested whether Descovy F/TAF, a newer daily pill, was as effective as F/TDF...

The trial had three arms. Young women were randomly assigned to one of the arms in a 2:2:1 ratio (Len LA: F/TAF oral: F/TDF oral) in a double blinded fashion. This means neither the participants nor the researchers knew which treatment participants were receiving until the clinical trial was over.

In eastern and southern Africa, young women are the population who bear the brunt of new HIV infections. They also find a daily PrEP regimen challenging to maintain, for a number of social and structural reasons.

During the randomised phase of the trial none of the 2,134 women who received lenacapavir contracted HIV. There was 100 percent efficiency.

By comparison, 16 of the 1,068 women (or 1.5%) who took Truvada (F/TDF) and 39 of 2,136 (1.8%) who received Descovy (F/TAF) contracted the HIV virus...

What is the significance of these trials?

This breakthrough gives great hope that we have a proven, highly effective prevention tool to protect people from HIV.

There were 1.3 million new HIV infections globally in the past year. Although that’s fewer than the 2 million infections seen in 2010, it is clear that at this rate we are not going to meet the HIV new infection target that UNAIDS set for 2025 (fewer than 500,000 globally) or potentially even the goal to end Aids by 2030...

For young people, the daily decision to take a pill or use a condom or take a pill at the time of sexual intercourse can be very challenging.

HIV scientists and activists hope that young people may find that having to make this “prevention decision” only twice a year may reduce unpredictability and barriers.

For a young woman who struggles to get to an appointment at a clinic in a town or who can’t keep pills without facing stigma or violence, an injection just twice a year is the option that could keep her free of HIV.

What happens now?

The plan is that the Purpose 1 trial will go on but now in an “open label” phase. This means that study participants will be “unblinded”: they will be told whether they have been in the “injectable” or oral TDF or oral TAF groups.

They will be offered the choice of PrEP they would prefer as the trial continues.

A sister trial is also under way: Purpose 2 is being conducted in a number of regions including some sites in Africa among cisgender men, and transgender and nonbinary people who have sex with men.

It’s important to conduct trials among different groups because we have seen differences in effectiveness. Whether the sex is anal or vaginal is important and may have an impact on effectiveness.

How long until the drug is rolled out?

We have read in a Gilead Sciences press statement that within the next couple of months [from July 2024] the company will submit the dossier with all the results to a number of country regulators, particularly the Ugandan and South African regulators.

The World Health Organization will also review the data and may issue recommendations.

We hope then that this new drug will be adopted into WHO and country guidelines.

We also hope we may begin to see the drug being tested in more studies to understand better how to incorporate it into real world settings.

Price is a critical factor to ensure access and distribution in the public sector where it is badly needed.

Gilead Sciences has said it will offer licences to companies that make generic drugs, which is another critical way to get prices down.

In an ideal world, governments will be able to purchase this affordably and it will be offered to all who want it and need protection against HIV."

-via The Conversation, July 3, 2024

[uncanny-tranny]

I won't rest until we start dispensing PrEP in every vending machine and people all over regardless of if they're in a straight relationship or a normal one or are single or whatever else are taking it. It shouldn't be seen as "the drug the queers take" because (spoilers!) Everyone Can Get HIV and It Does Not Discriminate.

[ttiot]

If you think being white will save you from HIV, think again.

If you think your PeRP medication is safe, think again.

If you think your republican clothing optional gay campgrounds where straight men have unprotected sex with gay men are safe, think again.

If you’re gay and voted for republicans then I guess you wanted to get AIDS and bred.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Tierney Sneed and Tami Luhby at CNN:

The Supreme Court said Friday it will review the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s no-cost coverage mandates for certain preventive care services, putting the landmark health care law in front of the justices again just as President-elect Donald Trump – who tried to repeal the law during his first presidency – returns to the White House.

While not an existential threat to Obamacare, the case could imperil access Americans have to cost-free preventive treatments and services, including HIV prevention medications, heart statins and various screenings for cancers and other diseases. The cost of some of these preventive services can be substantial, which would deter some people – particularly those with lower incomes – from accessing the care and slow the early detection of potentially deadly illnesses. The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the mandates in question, based on the recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force, violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because its members are not appointed by the president with Senate confirmation. The 5th Circuit’s ruling was directed at no-cost coverage requirements implemented after Obamacare’s enactment in March 2010.

The appellate ruling only blocked the mandates as applied to the challengers of the specific case, a Texas business and several individuals. But both the Biden administration and the challengers agreed that the 5th Circuit’s precedent set the stage for another party to sue to block the mandates nationwide, and both sides had asked the Supreme Court to take up the case.

Among the other no-cost coverage mandates that are put at risk by the 5th Circuit ruling are prenatal nutritional supplements, physical therapy for older Americans to prevent falls and lung cancer screenings that, according to the Biden administration, could save the lives of 10,000 to 20,000 Americans a year. A variety of other no-cost preventive services – such as well-baby visits and autism screenings for children, cervical cancer screenings and breastfeeding support programs for women, and flu, measles and chickenpox vaccines – are not at issue in the case.

[...]

‘Protections for millions’

In her petition that the Supreme Court take up the case, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote that the 5th Circuit ruling “jeopardizes healthcare protections that have been in place for 14 years and that millions of Americans currently enjoy.” “This Court’s review is warranted because the court of appeals has held an Act of Congress unconstitutional and its legal rationale would inflict immense practical harms,” she wrote, later adding that the justices should also take up the case because the appellate “decision threatens to disrupt a key part of the ACA that provides healthcare protections for millions of Americans.” The challengers also urged the Supreme Court to take up the case, even as they argued that the 5th Circuit’s ruling was “well-reasoned and correct.” They pointed to the Supreme Court’s typical practice of granting cases where an act of Congress was deemed unconstitutional by a lower court. The Texas business, Braidwood, sued over the mandates because the company had moral objections to covering the HIV prevention medications – known as PrEP. The company also objected to paying for insurance that covered screenings for sexually transmitted diseases and other treatments related to conduct the employer morally opposed.

The MAGA majority on SCOTUS saw fit to review the Becerra v. Braidwood case, which would review Obamacare (PPACA)’s no-cost of HIV prevention medications, heart statins, and various screenings for cancers and other disease.

[kittykatninja321]

what’s crazy is that just a year ago I was using the data on the CDC website to research HIV statistics/history for a college project, and right now someone who got the same assignment I did might be having a much harder time with that project because that information is being censored by the government

[gwydionmisha]

SCOTUS Round UP: Published 4/6/25AM

Stay Noisy:

The one time I was able to go to a big DC protest it was in support of Abortion Rights when there was a case before the Supreme Court (on a date!) in 1989. That time, we won.

I want to thank all of you protesting out there.

[osokasstuff]

in relation to the last reblog, some things about HIV. (it's not really a proper educational post (tm) just some facts and misconceptions that i wanna bring so please do your own research if you're able).

HIV is transmitted through blood and sex.

HIV is NOT transmitted through air, saliva, common dishes, household items, etc.

PrEP = pre-exposure prophylaxis. treatment that you get if you regularly participate in risky activities to prevent getting HIV. if you regularly participate in risky activities (share syringes with someone, have unprotected sex), you may consider using PrEP. YOU NEED TO BE HIV- TO USE PrEP!! usage of PrEP if you've already got HIV is dangerous! HIV may develop resistance to the anti-retroviral drug you intake for PrEP, and it can make treatment more difficult!

PEP = post-exposure prophylaxis. treatment that you get as an emergency if you get at risk suddenly (had unprotected sex with someone whose status you don't know, were sexually assaulted, don't remember whether you used condoms or not, condom slipped/teared, shared syringe with someone, etc). it is an EMERGENCY MEASURE that couldn't be used on a regular basis. if you're exposed at risk on a regular basis, consider using PrEP.

PEP needs to be started NO LATER THAN IN 72 HOURS after exposure. the earlier you start, the higher the effectiveness is.

what does it mean: after exposure, you'll have HOURS to contact with medical provider/center/place where you can get PEP and start treatment. so it's better to research opportunities beforehand. maybe get a supply, if it's legal. but at least you need to find a place where to go in emergency case.

the most risky activities are: usage of same syringe for injections, unprotected sex with contact of genitalia and anal, sexual assault (PEP is recommended). consencual oral sex has very very very low risks (PEP is not recommended). anyways, if you think you have been exposed at risk, you should contact your medical provider or centers that specialize in HIV prophylaxis and treatment. it's better to contact in any doubts.

idk how it works in other countries, but where i live we have (some) HIV/AIDS centers where people can get tested, get PrEP, PEP, and help with access to antiretroviral treatment. places that you can research: HIV/AIDS centers, planned parenthood, reproductive clinics, queer-specialized places, etc.

HIV IS NOT ADDICTS-ONLY DISEASE. HIV IS NOT QUEER-ONLY DISEASE. HIV IS NOT MARGINALIZED PEOPLE-ONLY DISEASE. marginalized groups have their risks because of stigma, ostracization, medical neglect, etc. BUT no one is immune to HIV. A LOT OF, and i mean it, generally privileged people get and transmit HIV because they're sure they will never get it.

there are MORE THAN ONE HIV STRAIN. and you can get more than one HIV strain. so if you're living with HIV and going to have risky activity with someone living with HIV and you've not gotten it one from another, YOU STILL NEED PROTECTION. (if you both don't have undetectable viral load).

UNDETECTABLE = UNTRANSMITTABLE. if someone lives with HIV and has undetectable viral load, they can't transmit HIV to someone else. which means you can have unprotected sex with them (if you all don't have other STDs), they can give birth and don't transmit HIV to the children, etc.

HIV IS NOT THE ONLY STD. there are others, and their transmission differs from HIV transmission. for example, oral sex is risky for gonorrhea. so DON'T NEGLECT CONDOMS!

HIV and STDs are not the worst things in the world. most STDs are either curable or controllable, and you can live fine with them. and anyways, no disease should be stigmatized.

HIV and STDs aren't dirty. thinking that "only dirty shameless people can get HIV/STD" is a) discriminatory; b) factually incorrect - everyone can get STDs; c) prevents people from getting tests and treatment; d) promotes the spread and evolution of STDs.

anti-retroviral therapy may be expensive/inaccessible in lots of places. research the situation where you live and your opportunities in case you'll need HIV-associated treatment (PrEP, PEP, anti-retroviral treatment).

people who know that they have HIV are not the "dangerous" ones. the "dangerous" ones are people who have never gotten tested, who are sure that HIV is not something that they can get, and who ask you to have a sex without a condom.

i'm sorry if i say obvious things here, but i'm not sure about public awareness around HIV and thought that if someone can be surprised that person living with HIV can have children without HIV, then these things should be articulated.

[floraleevee]

it really is amazing how much the us hates gay people on a systemic level

[ban-joey]

anyway today i test how political is too political for publishing a social epidemiology paper in the current climate

[bibleofficial]

i hate this country so fucking much ‘show up at 8 & u can get ur mpox vaccine before ur bloods :)’ & i show up at 8 & everything is fucking closed bro im straight up about to walk back home without even waiting to do bloods this is fucking stupid i hate my LIFEEEEEEE

[creepyscritches]

Formulating a high level question on the financial side of medicine when my strength lies in clinical and only hearing crickets in the call when I finish like.......am I loudly stupid or does no one have an answer

[jcsmicasereports]

POFF SHOOTS OF PrEP ( Pre Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV) Clinics by Saraswathi Lakkasani MD in Journal of Clinical Case Reports Medical Images and Health Sciences

Introduction

HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), is use of antiretroviral medications to prevent acquisition of HIV infection, in a HIV negative person who has on going risk of acquiring HIV. This strategy has proven effective in several recently published reports. The regimen if used optimally has HIV reduction record of 99%. However, there are several positive unforeseen benefits in this strategy. In this observational study we are presenting some additional benefits we observed in our Prep Clinic.

We are reporting the findings of our on-going PrEP Clinic for your perusal. Saint Michaels Medical Center is a 150 to 200 bedded community hospital, at Newark, New Jersey. We follow more than 200 PrEP clients in our Prep Clinic. We follow the state mandated protocol for induction and follow up.

Observation Results

So far there is no seroconversion to HIV after starting PrEP. Two of our clients had successful full term, normal pregnancies with sero negative healthy babies. Statistically significant number of STI’s (sexually transmitted Infections) were diagnosed and successfully treated and Significant number of unimmunized clients for Hepatitis B and A were identified and immunized. One case of uncontrolled diabetes and one hypercalcemia were identified at the initial visit and referred to the respective specialist. One patient was found to have anal mass, six months into the program, being pursued by colorectal surgeon.

Conclusion

Among the risk groups benefited by PrEP, the use of PrEP has increased by 500%. The average age group of clients falls between 25 to 35 who are in good health and with very few comorbidities who may or may not come to Primary care clinics on regular basis.

PrEP clinics gives an excellent opportunity to detect, diagnose and treat some of the commonly missed but treatable medical issues. The demand will be increasing in future. Our findings may be the tip of an iceberg.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lil Kalish at HuffPost:

The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in Kennedy v. Braidwood, the first significant challenge to the Affordable Care Act under the current Trump administration and a case that could strip away insurance coverage for preventive services like cancer screenings, HIV prevention and diabetes medication for millions of Americans. The case has its origins in a 2020 legal challenge by Braidwood Management, Inc., a Texas-based Christian company that sued the federal government and claimed providing coverage for PrEP — an HIV preventive medication also known as pre-exposure prophylaxis — violated its rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. At the time, Dr. Steven Hotze, the sole trustee and beneficiary of the Braidwood Management company, said he was unwilling to pay for PrEP or STI screenings for his employees. “They are consequences of a patient’s choice to engage in drug use, prostitution, homosexual conduct, or sexual promiscuity – all of which are contrary to Dr. Hotze’s sincere religious beliefs,” the complaint read. The central question before the Supreme Court now is not about religious beliefs. Instead, the justices have been asked to weigh in on whether an independent task force has the authority to recommend preventive services like PrEP be covered by health insurers under the U.S. Constitution.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force is an independent group of volunteer medical experts who work outside of the federal government, although they are appointed by the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and their work is supported by an agency within HHS. Under the 2010 landmark Affordable Care Act, signed by President Barack Obama, private insurers are required to cover preventive services that are recommended by the task force. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Braidwood, however, private health insurers would no longer be required to fully cover preventive services and in turn, would make health care more expensive by adding on copays, deductibles or coinsurance to consumers. The outcome of the case could have widespread ramifications for 150 million Americans on private insurance. Thirty-six states don’t currently already have protections for coverage of preventive care built into their state insurance plans.

SCOTUS will hear oral arguments in Kennedy v. Braidwood later today. The Braidwood case could have dramatic impacts on access to preventive services like cancer screenings, HIV prevention, and diabetes medication.

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

""I'm sorry ma'am but it needs to go through a specialty pharmacy"" it is not that hard I just want my bespoke faggot meds so I don't get AIDS goddamn