Riobard

From the looks of it seems like deaf drivers stay on course without wandering, relatively speaking.

Although you fell short of one-week lead-in dosing I’m not sure whether you meant you missed doses within the abbreviated lead-in or within the on-demand sequence. Maybe both? There may be a better episodic salvage option for an abbreviated lead-in with or without consistent dosing, that being immediately adopting 2-1-1. Interestingly, while one-week lead-in dosing or 2 start-up doses in on-demand 2-1-1-… structure is recommended for adequate protection, updated on-demand guidance states that the subsequent on-demand prophylaxis sequence is satisfactory at 1–1-1-… dosing if the latest dose was no more than 6 days previously, but 2-1-1 if a week or more. Now that’s much more flexible than how we perceived it years back when on-demand was approved, no? This is not to say that one is restricted from 2-1-1-... in the subsequent sequence if the next occasion requiring protection is less than a week than the latest single dose. It’s your discretion and I certainly take 2 doses if merely a single non-dose day elapses from the previous sequence endpoint. If last dose in 2-1-1 is a Tuesday, my next 2-1-1 uptake the Thursday. Any toxicity concerns are assuaged by the rareness of such circumstances. If I needed to regularly double dose within short time frames I should be taking PrEP daily. However, my interpretation of how some interpret the guidelines is it is not recommended to compensate for a missed dose within the 7-day lead-in regimen by adding a second dose at any time, including 2-24 hours prior to activity as if you were initiating 2-1-1 given the notion of drug concentration absence or washout that renders you vulnerable. This seems rigid if strongly advised, and appears to be an artefact of the recommendation to not double-dose as compensation for a missed dose within a daily uptake regimen as long as uptake is generally very good at minimally 6 doses weekly. That said, it is deemed acceptable within a daily regimen plan to compensate for a missed dose within 12 hours past the typical uptake time, and the following dose as scheduled even though only an additional 12 hours or more elapses. There would be no reason to assume that failure to adhere to a full one-week lead-in would compromise the protection conferred by 2-1-1-… as called for when sexual activity imminently commences. The key is strict adherence once an on-demand sequence is initiated. The reason I put forward these ideas in detail is that you may have been unaware of your various prophylaxis salvage options in the context of missed doses that eventually created anxiety for you. In your shoes I’d have considered taking a lead-in category dose later than scheduled if I realized a dose was missed, or simply reverting to the established non-lead-in on-demand option depending on the details of less than optimal one-week lead-in uptake.

For sure, an injectable with effectiveness level such as Lenacapavir’s is a good bet, particularly if the proposed generic product drops to anticipated <$50 annually compared to Yeztugo’s current $28,000, but that is still a few years off and I believe the patent negotiation at this stage is that generic will be restricted to LMICs. Not sure where OP lives. I wasn’t putting forward 90% as any option’s efficacy compared to no PrEP. The way I set it up was the intention to indicate that depending on whichever Truvada-inclusive study’s cohort a research subject assigned to Truvada uptake found themself in could be at close to 10-fold greater risk for infection and that doesn’t add up. I should have emphasized It isn’t a true efficacy metric because it’s comparing the case incidence outcome in two studies. However, it’s no less valid to make such comparisons than to indicate efficacy relative to estimated background HIV case incidence in which PrEP or PEP uptake is baked in to an unknown degree. Lenacapavir efficacy was described by the researchers as conferring 96% less infection risk relative to background HIV incidence. As you indicate, no PrEP taken as prescribed confers reduced risk as low as 90%. What I was pointing out was that the Lenacapavir researchers, based on comparing with the oral … Truvada … reported that Lenacapavir injection conferred 89% less infection risk. That leads the reader to believe that Lenacapavir is way more effective in a head-to-head comparison. However, when HIV case incidence for Truvada recipients in the Lenacapavir study, .92 cases per 100 person-years, is compared to the Truvada alone observational cohort study I referenced, 1.1 cases per 1,000 person-years, the degree to which Lenacapavir is purported as being more effective drops to 0%. An explanatory argument for such a difference (.92 vs .11), coincidentally the same reduced relative risk 89% in case incidence as was indicated comparing Lenacapavir to Truvada, could be that an experimental group was considerably less adherent to oral uptake than an observational group. But seriously, I would find it hard to buy that assumption even considering that a randomized trial is obviously a different methodological animal than a single product cohort. I grasp the difference between HIC and LIC privilege and resource access but If I or my public coffers or insurers had to fork out $28,000 for an equally clinically effective option … and given some amount of wiggle room for less than 100% oral meds taken as prescribed … because I suck at remembering daily pills I might try to find a way to overcome such adherence limitations. You can put a price on health even if a price shouldn’t be put on it.

Showbar is at Carvalho de Souza 278F, equidistant from two very close Madureira stations on different Supervia lines that fan out westerly but converge at Central Station easterly. You need to nose around at the building complex to discover what would be Unit or Loja F as there is no apparently overt signage. Also see X.

Simply landing, by misfortune it seems, in the Lenacapavir research was unhealthy for the comparison group assigned to daily FTC/TDF and LEN placebo. The oral PrEP incidence rate was 10 times that of the well-known previous observational cohort study (ANRS PREVENIR), for similar population parameters, in which the incidence rate for either daily or on-demand Truvada trended at the same level as for the more recent Lenacapavir study injection recipients. Thus, having been, by happenstance, in the study evidently better for one’s HIV infection incidence outcome would yield similar efficacy as the relative efficacy purported by Lenacapavir compared to conventional oral PrEP … about 90%. You don’t have to pre-establish an agenda of meta-analysis to objectively reference apparent contradictions in outcome. No academic attempt to responsibly synthesize PrEP would omit the outcome difference This is what happens when researchers are so biased and disingenuous that they are keen to introduce the background of their aims, yet in discussion stages omit reference to the enormous differential between the findings for the comparison group they wish to describe as deprived by virtue of not accessing the “favoured” (bias source) product and previous research findings that document what could realistically be expected when sticking to oral uptake. Here we have a marketing thrust that asserts that a vastly more expensive PrEP option is substantially superior to a comparative generic oral product, the latter at pennies to the dollar, when it is merely noninferior at the level of breakthrough infection incidence by person-years denominator when you drill down into the reasonably manageable breadth of PrEP research. In fact, the HIV seroconversion rates are virtually identical … 0.11 cases per 100 person-years for LEN in PURPOSE 2; 1.1 cases per 1,000 person-years for oral PrEP in ANRS PREVENIR.

The ratios were actually 2:2:1 for PURPOSE 1 (LEN : F/TAF : F/TDF) the cis-gender women population sample study; and 2:1 for PURPOSE 2 (LEN : F/TDF) the men and gender diverse population sample study. The latter more relevant to most of us. What catches my eye most for PURPOSE 2 are the supplementary bacterial STI data, not packaged in the original NEJM paper eleven months ago, but soon afterwards shown in the manner appended below, depicting the consequences of not using condoms. Not that it isn’t consistent with what we already know about STI incidence in the context of HIV PrEP. One way to interpret person-years is that if the LEN trend for the entire study sample were to be theoretically reflected in any one individual study subject, that person would acquire a combined total of gonorrhea or chlamydia infection on approximately 8 separate occasions going forward 10 years. Bear in mind that condom use is not restricted or tracked in the research, so the incidence rates are actually higher, to an unknown degree, among persons consistently not using condoms.

Well, cuz you rag on select others with text but have nothing intelligent to say other than a lazy emoji when you anticipate digging yourself into a deeper hole. I’m supposed to be impressed with your meagre motley crew of alliances when the readership is several thousand members? Even then, the low single digit subgroup that you just stated you rely on for backing seem to be subpar relative to your own intelligence. You’ve just served up a big nothing-burger of a response and you hardly exemplify gay rights advocacy other than the very deterioration to which you attempt to call attention . 🥱🥱🥱

Yet you are one of the top ranked board scolds, persistently squabbling with gay men and downvoting them at every turn.

Oh the old my personal experience stands in for rational science argument.

Oh … come on.

For every cumulative 1,000 suffocated less frequent posters there’s an overregular poster whose ruling the roost obsession never peters out.

February 1945 is underway? OK then whatevs you say.

How will he wade through all the recycled news posts?

Yeah we read and watch the news. What have you added meaningfully?

Correct as to speaking into a completely empty space that comes up completely empty.

Just shorten to Heba and Olympic-grade length less imperative. The Palace is extremely pricy.

It tracks, though. One old bag to another. No AirTag needed.

Search: “nonsentient sleepless cross-wired troll bot ineffectual boring digs” Yield 4 seconds later: rosebud-petalled towel swans in cheap hotel room image Obviously it tracked.

Still is. Bus faster, though, and you can for a few extra dollars book 2 seats together for your own use, stretch out, etc, especially beneficial if you happen to be an amputee and Mavica turns up. Though bus or train subject to long border delays if one of a few known loser punters is caught at Rouses Point with CSAM on their device.

Yep, manage the troll suites Floribot had himself posted an appreciative photo of.

… unfortunately and disenchantingly, some rando examples too freely, as Olddaddy may observe.

They made it through 17 of 31 agenda items and this topic was not (or not yet) covered. I’m as bored about it as I’m bored about board trolls. I extensively contribute to the tourism economy either way. My only interest is in expanding migratory period 90 day limit without the hassle of imploring fed police for extensions not guaranteed. Prospective visa application candidates? Have at it. Better yet, just apply and get one.

No babes. Not at all. It takes a mean dullard. I was referring to your owning being off topic. Off topic on the Brazil subforum is anything not $$$. It just read as funny because nonfinancial posts such as label discussions are, thus, waaaaaaay off the page🤣 I just can’t bring myself to offer the title “client” to some here. Punter generically works. But you piqued my interest and here’s the search yield here, waaaaaay off topic.

Slightly? I use the term frequently but perhaps its reduced presence is due to my regular employment of the term "cheapo" because, you know, trolls with 0 fan base and cheapos ... birds of a feather flock and fuck over poor local trade together.