Article seems to have only researched a certain group of people.
What article? I linked a bunch of them. I did that so that readers would find the bulk of info they might want in at least one of them, and if not expressly in an article I linked, find clues to obtaining the info they might desire in the reference information in one of the articles I linked. Believe it or not (I know you aren't chiding me) I do put something of a legit effort into being comprehensive when I'm, as I did in that post, merely sharing information that has come my way.
How can you say that? How many of the articles did you read in the thirty minutes between my posting the article links and your making the remark above? The second endnote in the article, "How Stigma Surrounding the Use of HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Undermines Prevention and Pleasure: A Call to Destigmatize “Truvada Whores”," identifies a study that deals specifically with the topic about which you've asked. That endnote says:
Choopanya K, Martin M, Suntharasamai P et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV infection in
injecting drug users in Bangkok, Thailand (the Bangkok Tenofovir Study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9883):2083–2090. [
PubMed]
There is even on the side of the page a link to a summary of that document, and on the summary page, there is a link to the full article in
Lancet.
Truly, one of the reasons I typically/often link to scholarly content is because such articles without exception point one to other related scholarly content, and in most if not all such documents, the authors are quite clear and explicit in identifying the limits of the nature and extent to which one can extrapolate their findings to other situations. I think that's useful for it provides both expert guidance and perspective to readers who are not expert in the given subject matter.
Where are the statistics of needle users? Article seems to have only researched a certain group of people.
I don't know the answer to your question. How could I? You don't indicate what nature of statistics you mean.
I "googled" for direction on where to seek answers to it and the very first result I got is this:
Attitudes and Acceptance of Oral and Parenteral HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis among Potential User Groups: A Multinational Study. I haven't read it yet, but it looks like an excellent candidate for providing a very credible answer to your question. The second result --
Enrollment Characteristics and Risk Behaviors of Injection Drug Users Participating in the Bangkok Tenofovir Study, Thailand -- seems it too may point to a very fine document for answering your question.
I also did
a more precise Google search and found these articles, which I have yet to read:
Aside:
I don't mean to be a jerk toward you for I see you "thanked" my post above. I appreciate that, and I realize you appreciate my having shared the information links. So, please, don't take this the wrong way -- I'm not so much "blowing up" at you,
per se. You just happen to have posted the remark that catalyzed my doing so -- for you are hardly the first or only person who's asked questions for which Google easily points one to the answer(s), but really, am I the only one who knows how to use Google to do more than sate a need for confirmation bias? Truly, reading some posts and inquiries here, I sometimes feel as though I might be.
I'm just flabbergasted at the frequency at which on USMB, one must, with regard to highly credible information and rigorous and very sound analysis of it, both "lead the horse to water and try to make it drink." And let me be clear, I mean information, not opinions (ill or uninformed) about information, it's merit, relevance, etc.
So, apologies for the "rant." I just think that sort of indolence I've described is much to prevalent on USMB considering that it's a venue in which people, presumably, participate to have serious discussions about currently important issues. Perhaps I'm mistaken in thinking that is among the reasons people are here?
