Imagine if you could test for this right before you "got down." I imagine that'd change the game.
Although, a terrible part of me wonders if the condom debate will become the same as masks.
Unfortunately, HIV tests can't detect early infection, which is when it's most transmissible. The Oraquick FAQ says their test is accurate 3 months after exposure. So there isn't much benefit to testing right before sex vs every few months.
It is at risk. 20 years of investment have gone into it. Now, many renowned HIV researchers seem to be pivoting to help covid / long covid efforts, an epidemic within the pandemic. And they are finding it is similar to HIV - the only reason we cannot cure HIV is because the virus hides where the HIV drugs can’t go in. Leading to high inflammation.
Many researchers believe that if we go all in on one of these, it is possible we can make breakthroughs in HIV, ME/CFS, and post-acute infection syndromes (PAIS) in general. I remain hopeful.
We need a real moonshot here for many things. i.e. similar to what long covid is trying right now https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03225-w
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/75/Supplement_4/S557/68...
> "Critical to the therapeutics market has been the role of generic drug manufacturers’ ability to supply low- and middle-income (LMIC) markets with off-patent and licensed products at a high volume and relatively low cost."
HIV patients in wealthy countries are a cash cow for the pharmaceutical industry, at least for as long as a permanent one-shot cure is not discovered, but there's no profit in making drugs for people who can't afford to pay for them. As Goldman Sachs noted, discovery of a cure would destroy the market. Isn't capitalism great?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patie...
A breakthrough happens because the research community, available technology and it's economics are pointing in that direction anyway, even if the exact moment can't be known: i.e. Newton and Leibniz both inventing calculus around the same time.
If you're a pharma company and you find the cure for AIDS, then the race is on: someone else is very likely to find it within the same time frame (you know, if none of your thousands of employees decides to just leak it in its entirety).
There will be no market for for product if you don't get to market first: because anyone else will conclude the same.
"Suppressing the cure" doesn't happen. There are too many people involved, and no one goes into bioscience to not help people - the actual scientists don't get paid enough for that.
That price was half the cost of existing treatment and very high chance of success.
If capitalism actually worked, they would sell their cheaper and better pill. No shocker there, it didn’t happen (generics in India and so in).
If I was CEO of a drug company, I would certainly incorporate that (I won’t reap benefits) in research budget allocations.
meanwhile, some of the obnoxiously, obscenely wealthy individuals in the USA are running small pharm brands, either supplements or critical medicines. This wealth-crowbar was exposed to the public by the "pharma-bro" guy not long ago
Who screamed to give it away when who invented it? Who wanted to pay / set a $100k price?
Who made the existing treatment?
If capitalism worked who would sell the new pill for less? If it’s better, couldn’t you charge more?
> Yet, current reauthorization is at an impasse because of misperceptions and inaccurate assertions that have no bearing whatsoever on PEPFAR’s purpose and work. Some conservative voices contend that PEPFAR funds support access to abortions, assertions that PEPFAR staff and public health leaders repeatedly affirm are groundless. Other concerns point to PEPFAR language regarding groups that scientific data have shown to be at-risk for HIV and whose members need HIV prevention and treatment services, including transgender people and sex workers.
Yes, but that's sort of irrelevant for PEPFAR, which is a foreign aid program.
it sounds like this is mostly about the US?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Emergency_Plan_f...
Like what?
They believe they are the only sane men and women in a world of shadows and madness because that's the only way they can continue to function. There is no reasoning with someone who's gone that far. The veneer of egalitarianism that politics in the U.S. has prevents anyone from actually doing anything to stop this increasingly volatile group lest the intervening mediators be seen by their peers both within the volatile group and without as aggressive savages who would subvert well established conventions. The potential mediators must let themselves be stabbed and reply with "That is quite impolite" or else they lose all trust from said peers.
I never see poor people collectively failing to have children.
I only ever see wealthy people complain they aren't wealthy enough to have children and once they have more money that's when they'll have children.
It doesn't actually take very much money at all to have a child if you have no standards.
Virtually every cultural subgroup in history had their birthrates plummet once they reached a certain amount of wealth. Evidence indicates that if anything, poverty is good for population growth.
Are you really trying to imply that a "prudish lifestyle" where people actually have long-term relationships and marry is bad for birthrates, and more casual sex is good?
Not sure if I'd recommend doing that, but people will find a way to screw if they can.
PrEP offers 100% protection against HIV.
The connection between marriage and abortion isn't what you think it is.
