AHF’s Michael Weinstein mocks the CDC about PrEP

Timothy Kincaid

December 22nd, 2015

michaelIn 1987 there was little to no hospice care available for dying AIDS patients. Several activists united and petitioned LA County Board of Supervisors for funding and the AIDS Hospice Foundation was born with Michael Weinstein at its helm.

In 1995 – 1996, antiretroviral medication changed the face of HIV. Those infected with the virus no longer could expect an onset of opportunistic maladies followed by an early painful death. Now HIV, if properly treated, has no significant impact on quality of living or life expectancy. And the need for specialized AIDS hospice care diminished significantly.

So Weinstein rebranded the organization as AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and began offering medical services to those infected with HIV. Over time, AHF has grown tremendously, with revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars (much of it through either grants or Medicare) and programs dotting the globe. Also growing has been Weinstein’s political power (and compensation – about $400,000 in 2012).

Michael Weinstein has not been hesitant to use his connections and power, using public media attacks and lawsuits as his primary methods. In 2012, they spent over a million dollars on legal fees.

Many of Weinstein’s efforts have been controversial, and most come across as heavily moralistic. Taken cumulatively, they paint a picture of a man and an organization determined to stop others from having sex in ways in which he disapproves.

In 2007, Weinstein decided that Viagra was being used by people who were doing drugs. Disapproving, AHF held a press conference accusing Pfizer, the maker of Viagra, of contributing to HIV and announced a lawsuit against them over their marketing and demanding that they contributed to AHF. (Bay Area Reporter)

The Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation has charged the pharmaceutical company Pfizer with “promoting Viagra as a party drug … leading to more infections with sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV,” according to its president Michael Weinstein.

AHF filed suit in a Los Angeles court Monday, January 22 to force the company to end those ads, begin an education campaign on the responsible use of Viagra, and pay an unspecified sum to the organization to help care for people infected with HIV.

Weinstein had no facts to back up his assertions.

When pressed during a telephone conference call Monday to back up his assertion with data, Weinstein mentioned recently speaking with a group of black youth who said crystal meth “use is rampant” within their community.

I can’t find the results of that lawsuit, so it may have been nothing more than a bluff or an attempt at extortion.

Also in 2007, AHF began running ads in Indian newspapers accusing Cipla, an Indian company, of price-gouging. They did not get the support of local non-profit organizations who saw a conflict of interest. At the time, a leading Gilead exec was on AHF’s Board and they provided funding to Weinstein’s organization. (Gilead denied any connection with Weinstein’s effort.) (IndiaTimes)

Cipla had refused Gilead’s offer to sell the latter’s anti-AIDS drug Viread under a licensing agreement. Cipla is also the only Indian company opposing Gilead’s patent application for its blockbuster anti-HIV drug Viread in India.

In recent years, Weinstein has decided that he disapproves of people watching bareback porn and waged a war of accusation and innuendo against producers. Even though there is testing and prevention efforts in porn – both gay and straight – Weinstein and AHF seemed determined to stop its production altogether and in all circumstances.

In 2012 AHF spearheaded an initiative on the ballot in Los Angeles County which required porn actors, gay or straight, to wear condoms during anal or vaginal sex. Weinstein was not shy about his desire to monitor other’s desire. (Weinstein op-ed)

The fact that most straight porn is made without condoms sends a horrible message that the only kind of sex that is hot is unsafe.

Though opposed by the Libertarian Party, the Republican Party, and local newspapers, Measure B passed the vote with 60% of the vote. And, as could be expected, the $6 billion industry – and its economic benefits – moved out of Los Angeles County with sadly ironic consequences. (SF Weekly)

Last year, after Measure B pushed several companies to Nevada, the industry saw its first on-set transmission in over a decade. Though the performer tested negative for HIV before his shoot, the test used was not the RNA plasma test that is the standard here in California. By the time he shot the scene, his viral load had increased to the point where he could transmit the virus to someone else.

Undeterred by real life consequences, Weinstein presses on seeking a statewide initiative forcing his ideas about acceptable porn production throughout California. There may be an initiative on the 2016 ballot to mandate Weinstein’s views.

In 2012, as the result of a county audit finding that AHF had overcharged LA County by millions of dollars, Weinstein sued the County in an effort to punish Supervisor Yaraslovsky, with whom Weinstein had feuded. (LA Times)

The lawsuit arose out of an audit by the county, which claimed the foundation had overcharged $1.7 million for its AIDS services by billing for costs that should have been allocated to other sources. The judge did not rule on which side was correct, only saying that the county has the right to audit its contractors.

Weinstein, defending his political tactics, told the paper that regardless of who was billed for the costs, the money was spent serving patients: “We would not have gotten to where we are today if we hadn’t fought like hell on behalf of our clients and our mission.”

A U.S. District judge ruled for the county this week. “Rather than a sincere attempt to vindicate their First Amendment rights,” the paper quotes the judge saying, “the court fears that plaintiffs instituted this action in an effort to obtain a tactical advantage in their ongoing political battles.”

To illustrate his conclusion, he included an excerpt from an email Weinstein sent to a foundation staff member shortly before the suit was filed:

“It is time to take the gloves off,” Weinstein wrote, according to the written decision reported in the Times, “We need to go after Zev [Yaroslavsky] directly and hard. He is the real power behind our problems with the county on porn, the audit and fee-for-service. Plus he is a lame duck and an arrogant jerk. His Berman-Waxman power base is dead and he and others need to be taught a lesson. The voters are with us.”

But it isn’t just the big-dollar fights and power plays that have caused controversy. So too have many of AHF’s public pleas for the public to get tested.

In Los Angeles, one can’t get away from AHF’s billboards. And they seem to share a common theme: sex is dirty and bad and people who want to have sex with you are liars who want to give you diseases.

One such campaign featured a number of couples of various races and sexes with the tag line “Trust Him?”


Though nothing in the ads tells you why one would not trust the other, but Weinstein apparently assumes that sex must include some sleazy component and had this to say about the immensely unpopular billboards. (Poz)

“While infidelity is nothing new, the level of risk in contracting STDS from bed-hopping partners is at an all-time high. We want to remind couples that STDs linger around much longer than a wandering eye and that secret sexual experiences can often produce much more than what one bargained for.”

This message has many HIV/AIDS activists disgusted at Weinstein and his organization. (HIVPlusMag)

This stigmatic view of sex and trust is both reductive in personal responsibility and stigmatizing towards HIV-positive people. It suggests that people living with the disease are akin to criminals who lie in order to have sex, or even intentionally spread the virus. Sure, the people behind the AHF campaign may argue differently. However, it is hard to ignore the criminal theme of the advertisements that, by default, further marginalize people living with HIV and keeps fear in the forefront of safer sex messaging. As one Facebook user stated, “This does not say ‘fear HIV.’ It says, ‘fear people living with HIV.'”

In addition to all the ways that Weinstein doesn’t want people to have sex, he also has opinions about how they meet. Earlier this year, another of AHF’s billboard campaigns went on the direct attack against hook-up sites.

ahf tinder

As usual, when Tinder objected, Weinstein bulldozed over them and hinted that it all could be fixed by coughing up. (Guardian)

“They’re tone deaf,” Michael Weinstein, president of AHF, told the Guardian. “It would have been much wiser for them to say that they’re concerned about their customers and look forward to working with us to help people get the checkups that they need. This would not have been the global story that it has become if they had not responded that way.”

And lest you think these ads come across as sex-negative,

“There are consequences to hooking up,” Weinstein told the Guardian. “That’s not a moralistic judgement. It’s just a fact and minimizing that is important.”

But nothing has set Weinstein and AHF apart from the HIV/AIDS community more than Weinstein’s obstinate opposition to pre-exposure prophylaxis. The battle between anti-PrEP forces (Weinstein and AHF) and pro-PrEP forces (The Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, AIDS Project Los Angeles, amFAR, Gay Men’s Health Crisis, the National Minority AIDS Counsel, and virtually every gay and AIDS/HIV advocate that seeks to see an end to the transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus) has turned into all out war.

The opening salvo was fired by Weinstein on April 7, 2014 (AP)

“If something comes along that’s better than condoms, I’m all for it, but Truvada is not that,” said Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “Let’s be honest: It’s a party drug.”

Obviously, Truvada is not a party drug. It is not a euphoric, a hallucinogen, a mood enhancer, nor does it have the hallmark of any other pharmaceutical whose primary purpose is to feel good. What Weinstein meant here is what he meant when he accused Viagra of being a party drug: that it was used by people doing drugs and having bad bad sex. That it prevented these naughty naughty gay boys from infecting each other with HIV was secondary to his objection to their behavior.

In August 2014, Weinstein started running ads in gay newspapers which, at first glace, appeared to say that PrEP was not very effective at preventing transmission.

AHF prep facts

Those who read the text would learn that any effectiveness was low due to low adherence – not exactly a surprise for research in high-risk and third world populations. But even if you get beyond the graph, Weinstein extrapolated from that data a conclusion set that is not supported in science: Low adherence means low effectiveness in preventing HIV and effectiveness measures whether Truvada works in the real world.

In other words, Truvada doesn’t work.

This infuriated those who have been taking strides to eliminate HIV transmission in the real world. They particularly noted the dishonesty of Weinstein who never notes that for those who DID adhere to the drug protocol effectiveness was 99% or better.

But Weinstein seems uninterested in facts. He has positions. And a sizable salary based on continued services to those who become newly infected each year.

In fact, there have been raised questions about the ethics of AFH’s testing facilities and how they feed a stream of income into the organization. In April of this year, three former staffers filed a whistleblower lawsuit against AHF:

The plaintiffs accuse AHF of an “organizational-wide criminal effort” across at least 12 States in the form of kick-backs to AHF clients and staffers. They believe that AHF has defrauded governmental programs out of tens of millions of dollars, based on their own experience with the agency going back to at least 2010.

The three plaintiffs, all former managers at AHF who were in a position to be familiar with agency policy, also include Mauricio Ferrer of Florida and Shawn Loftis of New York.

When someone tested positive in an AHF clinic, the suit claims, they were offered cash or other inducements to be linked to care in AHF clinics. Furthermore, AHF staff were provided commissions when they successfully linked someone with a positive test result to AHF services. This procedure was developed first in Los Angeles and then spread across all States where AHF has a presence.

Of additional concern is whether AHF’s (grant funded) testing centers inform those who test HIV negative that they have an options to persue PrEP. Although some communities, like West Hollywood, require all testing facilities to give PrEP referral information, many do not.

And Weinstein has made it clear that he is the face and voice of opposition to PrEP. While some, like Larry Kramer, initially had concerns, they’ve come to see the potential of the drug. Kramer joined Peter Staley and others earlier this month in releasing a statement that reads in part:

We – AIDS activists, new and old, aged 24 to 80 – have just broken bread in the same apartment where GMHC was formed, coming together for a lively discussion on how to reduce HIV infections among gay men and trans women. Although we may not see eye-to-eye on every issue we debated tonight, we all agree that Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly effective at protecting a person from HIV infection. While PrEP isn’t for everyone, any individual who thinks they are at risk of getting HIV should have easy access to it, without judgement.

Weinstein appears to be the sole hold-out. But he is always ready to speak to any news source which is looking for “controversy” on the issue.

At the heart of Weinstein’s objections is the assertion that people at greatest risk won’t take the drug consistently. Which may be true. But it’s very implausible to assume that those who don’t have enough structure in their lives to take a pill once a day do have enough structure to have condoms ready and use them every time. Of the two, a daily pill requires far less forethought. Weinstein’s argument is laughable.

Also conveniently ignored is the consequences of occasional lapses. Failing to use a condom just one time can result in HIV transmission. But failing to take the pill just one time, or two times, or three times a week still provides enough protection to prevent transmission. In testing, those whose blood revealed adherence to the protocol four times per week have nearly 100% effectivity.

And, unlike condoms, PrEP doesn’t break.

As a corollary argument Weinstein insists that those who use PrEP won’t use condoms, which will lead to an increase in other STIs. And that too might be true. But it raises the natural question: if we find a true vaccine or a cure for HIV, will Weinstein oppose that measure as well because it would mean less condom usage? Will he insist that some continued HIV infection is a small price to pay for preventing increased gonorrhea?

That may be less rhetorical of a question than one might imagine. Weinstein has actually penned an op-ed to the LA Times calling on the federal government to cease funding for the search for a vaccine for HIV. Framed as a complaint against the wasting of funds that could otherwise be used (by AHF, I presume) to pay for treatment, it still is a chilling idea that the head of a prominent HIV/AIDS care organization opposes the search for a vaccine which could end the pandemic.

Although the opinions of both the activist and the science community have reached near consensus about the efficacy and value of PrEP as a tool in the fight against the transmission of HIV, Weinstein has been effective in his opposition. He has sown doubt in the gay community as to whether PrEP works. He has done his best to shame those who use this “party drug”. At least in part, he has contributed to the slow uptake in PrEP usage in the gay community.

And, having slowed the PrEP movement, now he’s decided that it’s time to mock the Centers for Disease Control for their struggle in convincing gay men that this preventative measure is neither shameful not ineffective.


You see, you shouldn’t push PrEP, but treatment. After all, if you pay AHF to treat people once they’ve contracted HIV, then their virus is brought down to undetectable levels and they are non-infectious. And as for PrEP, leave it to the Truvada whores who have multiple partners and never use condoms.

But the word is – finally – getting out. I see PrEP becoming a regular discussion point in some subsets of West Hollywood. Activists in New York are becoming more vocal. San Francisco City government is dedicating city resources. Social approval is on the uptick and the community – though originally fearful of another “solution” – has had time to observe and see how things went for the earliest guinea pigs.

Weinstein should get his gloating out of his system. Because I think that PrEP is going to become as common as condoms were in the 90’s and AHF is going to have to come up with some other business plan.


December 22nd, 2015

Weinstein could be in huge legal trouble for health care fraud should it be proven in court that he (AHF) encouraged self referral on federally insured or otherwise federally funded patients (Medicare, Medicaid, CHAMPUS). Plus, Medicare etc fraud is often punished by barring the offender from Medicare etc reimbursement, as well as the 3 fold payback requirement.

Paul Douglas

December 22nd, 2015

“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair


December 23rd, 2015

Timothy, thanks for the public service. AHF has been becoming very active in NYC–especially here in Brooklyn and they come across as a benevolent organization with lots of programming. I had no idea they had this dark side.

I guess I WON’T be dropping off stuff at their thrift store, after all. Will stick with Housing Works or Goodwill.


December 23rd, 2015

Wow, a post from Timothy that comes down against a private person doing what he wants with his wealth (to obfuscate facts and moralize, but still).

Now if only you could extrapolate the lessons you put forward in this post to other areas where wealth accumulation ruins democracy and that legislation is often needed to protect the weak and the poor.


December 23rd, 2015

To add to this discussion of AHF here is a section of an OP-ED published in HIV+ Mag back in June.

“In a 2014 lawsuit against L.A. County, AHF’s attorney, Samantha Azulay, argued for the invalidation of county funding contracts with smaller HIV and AIDS organizations with the words: “…You know, there might be some impact on these contracts, but maybe you’ve got to cut up a couple trees to save the forest.”

Reach LA, a youth organization with specific focus on HIV-affected African-American, Latino, and transgender youth, was among the “couple of trees” and it lost $100,000 funding.

In a 2013 dispute, AHF refused to pay rent for a space it had occupied since 2003 from Maitri, an AIDS hospice in San Francisco. The dispute arose when AHF refused to pay fair market rent for the property after opting for the renewal of the rent contract. Maitri has an operating budget of about $2 million, while Weinstein claims that AHF has a budget of $1 billion. The rent refusal caused Maitri an approximate loss of more than $300,000. AHF only had to pay $60,000.”


December 23rd, 2015

Thanks Timothy. I had seen the ads againist PReP but hadnt realized the organization’s reach.


December 23rd, 2015

If Truvada is a party drug, then by that reasoning aren’t condoms just party favors?

One could make all of the same arguments about condoms that he is making about Truvada. In fact, right wing religious folks have been doing that since the start of the epidemic.

Whether you like something or not, if it has been shown to decrease the transmission of a disease that has killed and continues to kill millions, it raises serious questions about where one’s priorities are.


December 25th, 2015

Activist organizations rarely serve the community’s interest. HRC is another clear example, we had recruiters on our campuses gloating about how they’re fighting for progressive values like minimum wage increase yet people came back to me saying after they looked at canvassing, HRC was paying its employees minimum wage with a possible increase based on a pyramid scheme.

Never truly liked activists, they’re more beholden to profitable narratives and a need to possess influence (often the economic kind).

Look at the Prop 8 fight as well, when the team came in to establish the legal battle, all the “community” busibodies at Lambda Legal, NCLR, and HRC wanted to thug in on the action, and whenever any credit went to the people who made the big impact ruling, they went hysterical.

“Social Justice” and “Human Rights” is a market. Pride is another example of a committee wanting to maintain commercial monopoly to fuel their wallets.

Tibor M

December 26th, 2015

While Weinstein does have extreme positions, this article is nothing short of a Weinstein hit job.

When I got to the part about the forced moving of the porn industry out of LA as the cause of the HIV transmission between porn performers, I had to roll my eyes. There’s a point at which we have to take responsibility for our own actions and not blame Weinstein.


December 26th, 2015

While Weinstein’s views may seem rather out there, I do think they are all very consistent with trying to prevent the spread of HIV.

Did Gilead write this article?

Ben in oakland

December 26th, 2015

Lucrece, your prop8 comment was bang on. HRC, NGLTF, EQ-ca all lost me forever as a supporter with their stupidity in the prop. 8 campaign. Even when confronted with the truth that their tactics had yet to win a single campaign, they kept insisting that they had it exactly right. I would have hesitated at one time to think that money and power motivated them far more than any altruistic or progressive motivations, but after listening to them, and talking to them at length, I’m not so sure that I would hesitate now.

I give money to NCLR and Lambda, but will never give a dime or the time of day to our so called national political organizations. And I had given them money ever since they started.

Jay Jones

December 26th, 2015

I disagree about this being a hit piece. It is past time for AHF to hold Weinstein accountable. The whistleblower lawsuit and Weinstein’s false assertion that a search for a vaccine means less money for treatment (practically a confession they want more infections and business, so oppose truly effective prevention) demonstrate that Weinstein has made AHF part of “AIDS, Inc.” I’m pleased finally to see a complete investigative piece of journalism like this one. Every AHF board member should study it. Adherence at Kaiser has been extremely good, with NO documented infections in people on PrEP. (SF published study, personal communication with LA clinic Kaiser employees.) Oh, and per the 2013 tax returns of AHF Weinstein that year made $396,161 including a $102,036 bonus. The “company” itself gets a tremendous amount of revenue and gross margin profit from taxpayers to treat people who are infected, and Weinstein’s pronouncements seem cynically calculated to keep new sufferers coming.

Curious Jack

December 27th, 2015

I have had some misgivings about Truvada, most of which have been assuaged. I’m no longer worried about people using it incorrectly or it giving people a false sense of security regarding HIV. I am still concerned about people’s lack of knowledge of antibiotic resistant gonorrhea* (and possibly a few other STI’s) and the potential for increases in cases if people use condoms less often.

The solution to this is not to prevent people from accessing Truvada but to ensure that those on it are educated about condom use (which I would guess is already happening) and are aware of the risks of other STI’s. Encouraging regular testing of those on Truvada and taking steps to increase the public’s knowledge on the subject is the way to go, not cutting people off from a good tool for dealing with a major problem in society.

*My experience with people’s ignorance on the subject involves a sample of friends that skew heavily towards those who are young adults and those from the midwest.


December 27th, 2015

Birth control pills also provide no protection against STDs (including HIV), but are widely prescribed to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Just because a particular medication does not do absolutely everything isn’t reason enough to discourage its use.

Dave H

January 2nd, 2016

I noticed that AHF had a float in the Rose Parade. It was one of the simpler floats (relatively speaking), but still, those things don’t come cheap.

How nice that they have enough extra money in their coffers to be able to afford this. Apparently everyone who needs assistance has been served. I’m sure everyone who gave them grants and donations is happy to see that their money might have gone to pay for this.

Timothy Kincaid

January 3rd, 2016

Please Note:

I have told Eric Payne before that I will delete any comments that provide scientifically false statements.

Payne has again posted a comment in which he asserts that PrEP does not prevent HIV infection and only prevents “the ability of the HIV retrovirus to replicate in the person taking the medication, keeping the viral load to undetectable levels.”

That is false.

Further, he asserts that Gilead, the makers of Truvada, back up his claim.

That is also false.

I have informed Payne that he must provide support for any such claims. He declines to do so.

I do not wish for BTB to be complicit in the dissemination of scientifically false information and have removed Payne’s comment.

Eric Payne

January 3rd, 2016


I’m going back over Gilead’s sites now, Timothy, and will repost the URL of the information I remember reading… and will also post a comment of apology if I fail to find the info that leads to my assertions.

But you know, Timothy, my assertions, if not based on fact, aren’t going to kill anyone… so how about you posting a URL citation/link to a statement by Giliad of PrEP conferring immunity from HIV, as you’ve stated?

Timothy Kincaid

January 3rd, 2016


The term I used is “effectively immune”.

To date, there have been no documented cases of HIV transmission to individuals who adhered to the PrEP protocol, other than one case of one man who seroconverted, but it was very early in treatment and it is believed that he seroconverted immediately before he began PrEP. To err on the side of caution, advocates say that PrEP’s effectivity is “99% or greater”.

I refer to that as “effectively immune”. If you don’t like that term, you needn’t use it.

Eric Payne

January 3rd, 2016

From http://www.truvada.com/treatment-for-hiv (a site maintained by Gilead)

Understanding HIV

HIV infects important cells for fighting infection called CD4 cells, or T cells. Once HIV enters the body, the virus multiplies inside these cells. These new viruses are released into the blood and infect other CD4 cells.
How TRUVADA can help

When used with another anti-HIV-1 medicine, TRUVADA helps make it harder for HIV-1 to multiply by blocking an enzyme in your body called reverse transcriptase
By helping to keep HIV-1 from multiplying in your body, TRUVADA helps lower the viral load, which means decreasing the amount of HIV in the blood
TRUVADA may also help increase the number of CD4 cells when used with another anti-HIV-1 medicine

Now, if a person has to be HIV negative to take Truvada, what viral load is there to reduce?

And from http://www.truvada.com/hiv-therapy

Getting and keeping your viral load undetectable

Viral load is the amount of HIV in the blood

If your viral load goes down to a level that lab tests do not detect, your viral load is said to be undetectable

An undetectable viral load means that your immune system is controlling the virus. It does not mean that the HIV infection is gone.

So, according to Gilead:

1. Truvada is nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor or, in laymens’ terms, a protease inhibitor.

2. It doesn’t KILL the HIV retrovirus, but prevents the ability of the HIV to replicate — HIV replicates by clipping off certain polymer strands of the hosts RNA, and re-arranging/restructuring those strands into a copy of itself. HIV does this via protease… which Truvada inhibits.

So if a person is infected with HIV while taking PrEP, the virus will not replicate and testing will return a negative result, as there will not be enough of the virus present to trigger a positive result.

That is not the same as “immunity,” Tim… no more than a flu shot this year makes a person immune to next year’s variant of the flu.

Your turn.

Find where Gilead even remotely suggests PreP provides “immunity,” or even references an “effective” form of immunity,

In fact, all I can find is Gilead stating PrEP therapy is to be used in conjunction with other safe sex practices.

Timothy Kincaid

January 3rd, 2016

As expected, Eric is quoting from the section of Gilead that discusses using Truvada as a treatment for those who are already infected with HIV.

But Truvada has TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE uses: one as treatment for those who are infected with HIV, and one as a preventative measure for those who ARE NOT infected with HIV.

Eric is quoting from the HIV treatment section and arguing that it applies to the HIV prevention protocol. It does not.

Eric says:

So if a person is infected with HIV while taking PrEP, the virus will not replicate and testing will return a negative result, as there will not be enough of the virus present to trigger a positive result.

But this is a nonsense statement as studies show that no person taking PrEP properly has yet become infected with HIV.

I’ll leave the above comment up so as to illustrate Eric’s confusion.

Timothy Kincaid

January 3rd, 2016

And to help Eric understand, I’ll quote from the CDC:

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (or PrEP) is when people at very high risk for HIV take HIV medicines daily to lower their chances of getting infected. A combination of two HIV medicines (tenofovir and emtricitabine), sold under the name Truvada® (pronounced tru vá duh), is approved for daily use as PrEP to help prevent an HIV-negative person from getting HIV from a sexual or injection-drug-using partner who’s positive. Studies have shown that PrEP is highly effective for preventing HIV if it is used as prescribed. PrEP is much less effective when it is not taken consistently.

[emphasis added]

Eric Payne

January 3rd, 2016

Okay, Timothy. I apologize. I obviously misunderstood what I was reading.

Your turn.

Where does Gilead’s — or the CDC, for that matter — state or even infer PrEP confers “immunity”, effective or otherwise, from HIV.

As I said, my misunderstanding doesn’t put someone’s life at risk.

Timothy Kincaid

January 3rd, 2016


Thank you for your apology.

As I stated before “effectively immune” is my term for a protocol that has not had any documented cases of transmission among those using it as directed. You need not use that term if you don’t wish to.

Bill Cohen

January 4th, 2016

Might “effectual immunity” be a
helpful term to use, as opposed to “effective immunity,”
or worse?


January 7th, 2016

I’d been wondering why ads for ED meds always include a disclaimer that they don’t prevent STIs; I can’t imagine a reasonable person thinking they would, so the presence of the disclaimer always struck me as odd. Now I’m guessing it’s because of Weinstein’s suit against Pfizer. Whoddathunkit?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.