I think in general, preventative treatment stimulates the person's immune system in advance of infection. Then if the virus is actually introduced there's a chance that the body can actually fight it off before it gets a toehold. Although the same effects might occur in all people, it might not cause as great of a decrease in drug users or M-F couples due to the infection vector. So it might be equally effective but only cause a 15% reduction thus making it less desirable for M-F couples to take.

Follow the mucus membranes.

Women are at much higher risk than men during vaginal intercourse (oversimplification alert!), and anal intercourse has higher incidence of infection than both.

Yep - it's actually a "utility" thing, especially compared to expense.

As you noted earlier, the comparison w/ HPV becomes apt at exactly this point: dudes could get the vaccine, but most male HPV infections have very few severe effects, especially in comparison with cervical cancers etc.

I was wondering if somebody was actually gonna catch that.

Doesn't sound so wonderful.

Yes!

I heard about it on NPR a little while ago, and they priced it at $30 a day. 39 cents versus $30? Wow.

Name brand vs. generic

I know...it just bothers me how much they can charge. Out of the three medications I take two have generics, and they cost me $30 together. The third does not yet and costs $70. And none of those are medications which prevent a life threatening illness.

Entirely different topic^, I just feel like ranting every time drug companies come up.

It is way overpriced. I only use generics.

I also have kind medical professionals who give me enough samples to last for a while. They know those prescriptions are overpriced even with health insurance.

I have no current alternative to the $70 medication, and I do need it. It's just frustrating to see the two others combined cost less than half of what that one does. (And this is all with good insurance as I'm on my parents' plan). The only times I get samples are when my doctor has them, and it's never a month's worth. I want to rant every time I go to the pharmacy.

Or, more specifically, "Patented vs. patent-expired" ... it sucks, but it's the cost of doing business as far as encouraging corporate-sponsored research. The deal with the devil, so to speak.

However, promoting it for men not only helps prevent penile cancer but also reduces the infection rate in women. Herd immunity at its finest. Also since it covers several of the strains that cause genital warts it isn't a bad idea to get the shot regardless of sex.

But while i'm still working on getting the HPV vaccine - insurance kicks in Dec 1st. Whoohoo! - I'm not going to start taking preventative HIV medication because the risks and likely the utility is just not the same.

I was cheered a bit to see an article state the rates of infection were slowing worldwide. Maybe some of the education is getting through.

Also companies may have deals with certain countries that provide anti-HIV or anti-malarial etc. drugs for far cheaper than they do elsewhere due to dire need. And over here, insurance companies subsidize it so the true cost is not always as apparent. $Cost is not the same as $AmountPaid.

I totally agree with you here, in the abstract, but also see why men are a much lower priority (for once) - particularly w/re/to Herd Immunity.

Yes, it was good that they studied women first, but now they're proceeding with the study for men and I suspect it will be improved for them as well. Since M-F sexual encounters are the most common it makes a lot of sense to innoculate the "carriers" (that is, men) as well as the women. :p

Similarly since gay men are still at the biggest risk - though not the fastest increasing risk - for HIV it makes sense that they were the target population here as well.