#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]

Christopher Wiggins at The Advocate:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, ruling in Kennedy v. Braidwood that health insurance companies must continue covering preventive services recommended by a federal task force — including HIV prevention medication, cancer screenings, and vaccines. The Court ruled 6-3, in an opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concluding that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force operates constitutionally and that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to appoint its members as inferior officers. That means the ACA’s mandate, requiring insurers to cover preventive services, remains intact. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neal Gorsuch dissented, The majority rejected arguments that the Task Force’s structure violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, emphasizing that Congress had provided for the Secretary’s oversight and removal authority, making the Task Force’s members “inferior officers.” At issue was whether insurers could be compelled to cover services such as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, which prevents HIV transmission. Public health experts say PrEP access is especially vital for Black and Latine gay and bisexual men and transgender women, who are disproportionately impacted by HIV. Other services potentially on the chopping block included screenings for cancer, depression, hepatitis B and C, and sexually transmitted infections, as well as a range of vaccines and counseling interventions.

[...] The plaintiffs, a group of Christian business owners, argued that being required to cover PrEP violated their religious beliefs, claiming the medication “encourages homosexual behavior.” A lower court had previously sided with them, sparking concern that the ruling could jeopardize nationwide access to dozens of preventive health services.

Yesterday, SCOTUS ruled 6-3 in the Kennedy v. Braidwood Management case to save free PrEP access.

See Also:

The Guardian: US supreme court rules key provision of Obamacare constitutional

LGBTQ Nation: Christians sued over PrEP coverage because it supports “homosexual behavior.” SCOTUS shut them down.

[str4wbrry-bl00d]

Not to alarm, but there's some important news flying under the radar:

[ID: a screenshot of an excerpt from nadler.house.gov article, published April 21st 2025, titled "Nadler Statement On Proposed Trump Cuts to Domestic HIV Programs." The excerpt reads: Trump's budget proposal would eliminate the Ending the HIV/AIDS Epidemic Initiative, the CDC's Division of HIV Prevention, and the Minority AIDS Initiative. It also eviscerates funding for the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program and slashes the NIH's budget by 40%. End ID]

[ID: A screenshot from a Google search of "Is Trump canceling HIV medication?" That has been answered with an excerpt from an NPR article, published January 28th 2025, titled: Trump's 'Stop-Work' Order for PEPFAR cuts off anti-HIV drugs for patients. The excerpt is as the following: Trump's 'stop-work' order for PEPFAR cuts off anti-HIV drugs for patients : Goats and Soda As a result of the new administration's actions, health centers funded by PEPFAR, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, are closing their doors and no longer dispersing medication. End ID]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/25/health/hiv-research-funding-cut/index.html

I'm not seeing this discussed much at all in the current news cycle. We are steam rolling towards another AIDS crisis here. I saw a gay man on TikTok share his concerns with losing access to PrEP, a medication that fights against contracting HIV and AIDS.

It's horrible we have to repeat what our queer elders did before us. Know your history. Lesbians, we will have to support and uplift our gay brethren. We will have to march, and shout, and throw bricks. This could be another queer genocide. However, we have the advantage of advanced medicine, technology, and an understanding of how the disease works.

We shouldn't have to do this, not again, but we will.

AIDS isn't the death sentence it once was, but who's to say it won't be again? People could be denied medical attention, shamed, and left to die afraid and alone. I really have no idea what Trump won't stoop to.

Please, educate yourself. Be prepared. PrEP requires a prescription from a medical professional, so it will be far more difficult to stockpile than Plan B. It does not have as long as a shelf life as Plan B either.

Resources under the cut:

Mayo Clinic - HIV/AIDS -> An overview of the medication condition, including signs and symptoms

HIV.org - Timeline of HIV and AIDS -> The history of the original AIDS epidemic

HIV.org - What is PrEP? -> Self explanatory, explains what PrEP is, how it's administered, the importance, and how it functions.

Planned Parenthood - HIV Services

[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.

[faggotcitosis]

of course mega syphilis was created in seattle. of course. they have patient zero and everything

[floraleevee]

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

[reasonsforhope]

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday [June 27, 2025] upheld a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, ruling in Kennedy v. Braidwood that health insurance companies must continue covering preventive services recommended by a federal task force — including HIV prevention medication, cancer screenings, and vaccines.

The Court ruled 6-3, in an opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concluding that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force operates constitutionally and that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to appoint its members as inferior officers. That means the ACA’s mandate, requiring insurers to cover preventive services, remains intact. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neal Gorsuch dissented.

The majority rejected arguments that the Task Force’s structure violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, emphasizing that Congress had provided for the Secretary’s oversight and removal authority, making the Task Force’s members “inferior officers.”

At issue was whether insurers could be compelled to cover services such as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, which prevents HIV transmission. Public health experts say PrEP access is especially vital for Black and Latine gay and bisexual men and transgender women, who are disproportionately impacted by HIV.

Other services potentially on the chopping block included screenings for cancer, depression, hepatitis B and C, and sexually transmitted infections, as well as a range of vaccines and counseling interventions.

The plaintiffs, a group of Christian business owners, argued that being required to cover PrEP violated their religious beliefs, claiming the medication “encourages homosexual behavior.” A lower court had previously sided with them, sparking concern that the ruling could jeopardize nationwide access to dozens of preventive health services.

Medical experts and LGBTQ+ advocates emphasized that PrEP is used by people of all backgrounds and sexual orientations, and that HIV “does not discriminate.”

Friday’s decision, on the last day of the Supreme Court's term, marks a significant win for LGBTQ+ health equity and for public health more broadly, following years of legal attempts to undermine the ACA’s nondiscrimination and preventive care mandates.

[Note: The fact that June 27th was the last day of the Supreme Court's term also means we get a little break from SCOTUS decisions potentially coming out and fucking everything up on any given day until October.]

A joint statement by Lambda Legal, PrEP4All, the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, the Center for HIV Law and Policy, and Equality Federation called the ruling “the right decision to reject this assault,” saying it “uphold[s] essential protections for preventive services and affirm[s] that prevention and early detection of diseases save lives, improve health outcomes, and reduce long-term health outcomes.”

They said the Braidwood case “has been not just an attack on HIV prevention or LGBTQ people — it has been a coordinated effort to dismantle access to no-cost preventive healthcare for more than 150 million Americans.”

“This was never about religious liberty,” the statement continued. “It has been about using LGBTQ people as a scapegoat to push a broader agenda that punishes the vulnerable. And the truth is, most of the people harmed by this decision wouldn’t have been queer. They would be working-class families, Black and Brown communities, rural Americans, and anyone who relies on preventive care to stay healthy and alive.”

The groups warned that while the ruling preserves existing protections, vigilance is needed to prevent political interference. “History reminds us that silence is deadly,” they said, invoking the memory of the AIDS crisis and those who “weaponized faith to justify inaction.” ...

“This Pride Month, we celebrate this victory as we honor the legacy of those who fought back at Stonewall, who took to the streets with ACT UP, and who demanded dignity at the height of crisis,” the statement said. “We carry that legacy forward now. Join us. Raise your voice. Defend preventive care. Fight back.”"

-via The Advocate, June 27, 2025

[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.

[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