Blogs
May 15, 2012 at 8:23 am
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Sorry we haven't cured AIDS fast enough for you in the roughly 30 years we have known about it.
Drugs like these are the necessary stepping stones to a cure. Instead of keeping helpful drugs in the lab, they let the public use them in the meantime. Saying it is worthless or harmful because it is not a 100% cure is inane.
Because irresponsible people will not use it correctly is not a reason to abandon a helpful treatment. A lot of people do not use condoms correctly, might as well throw them all out, right? Do not even get me started on all the girls I know who skip the pill often by accident.
It strikes me that the people least likely to be protecting themselves from HIV currently are going to be the least likely to take a preventative drug every day, consistently. If it's going to be allowed, at least make sure it's available to those in relationships with HIV+ people and those who are responsible enough to ASK for it if they're spreading the love a little.
So, because some people are irresponsible and immature, that means a drug meant to help them is bad? Huh?
Although some of you also want to ban guns because some people are too stupid to use them safely, so at least I give you points for consistency.
Uuuuh.. cheap shot much? Any idea how many women forget to take the pill every day? Any idea how many straight/bi men WOULD opt to take the male contraceptive pill if it became available? And take it consistently? Don't be naíve enough to follow the old "lol men are stoopid and immature" crap.
I've worked for AIDS service organizations for years, and from where I sit I see this as a huge transfer payment to pharmaceutical companies, and don't think the potential economic benefit of Truvada prophylaxis to our health care system is as profound as one might like. For some individuals, it may save them the lifelong burden of HIV, but at what cost?
I ask those who say we need more choices to combat infection whether we need to add a poor one?
In the immortal words of Edina Monsoon: "I don't want more choices, I want nicer things."
If these people are thinking, "Hey, I'm taking this drug so now I can skip condoms *all* the time," that's a problem. It's especially a problem when they turn around and don't take the drug appropriately.
And, since only 10% of the study participants took the drug correctly, that's a lot of worse for everyone else.
Curing any retrovirus is damn near impossible, because when the virus titer drops really low the viral genome can reverse transcript into DNA and insert itself into the host's genome, and then only get expressed at a later time (yes, I am massively simplifying here). Add to this that you have to wait for all your infected immune cells to die before all the HIV is gone from your system, and this can take about 50 years because some of them have reeeeaaaally slow turnover rates...curing HIV is basically functionally impossible.
tl;dr You really *can't* cure HIV, just treat it.
@5 - There has been a lot of research in a vaginal gel that contains antiretrivirals; it has been in testing in Africa for several years now. So far, the trials have shown only about a 30% efficacy: there, but not significant enough to do much good.
@16 - There has been promising research into a functional cure, by genetically modifying a person's CD4+ cells to become HIV resistant. It would not eliminate the virus from cells that are already infected, but it would greatly reduce the chance that the virus would continue to spread.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-5743…
Surprised the NYT didn't mention that little detail.
Truvada is a prescription drug. I don't see a lot of doctors prescribing it to irresponsible party boys. This would really only be to give a little more peace of mind to magnetic (positive & negative) couples.
Source?
Personal conjecture and hyperbole do not accurate 'hilarious' statements make.
So this drug requires major education before it is released. Give it to people. Make them take a course before being allowed to use this drug. There was talk, years ago, that giving antiretrovirals to Africans might produce drug-resistant strains of HIV because the Africans would use it inconsistently. Turns out everyone underestimated the Africans; they knew exactly how important those drugs were, even the children.
So yes, enough people being irresponsible and using this drug inconsistently IS bad for everyone.
Honestly, considering the risks and the side effects, even if I were in a relationship with someone who was HIV+, so long as they were on antivirals with an undetectable viral load, I would not use this drug. Correct and consistent Condom use combined with an undetectable viral load reduce the risk of infection to such minimal degrees that it isn't worth the risks of the drug itself.
Very.
Expensive.
The study says that 90 percent of men who took that drug took it inconsistently. You think 90 percent of women take birth control inconsistently? Don't you think birth rates would be a hell of a lot higher if that were the case?
Medical science delivers what it can, when it can. It is up to consumers, doctors, and policy makers to decide which programs and drugs are appropriate.
If a percentage of gay men just don't give a shit about themselves or the people they inject sperm into then you can hardly blame medical science.
Scientifically illiterate comments like @3 don't help and are easily refuted. The first company that came out with a cure for AIDS would make billions treating existing patients alone.
Curing disease is extremely hard. Most diseases are eradicated through limiting exposure: vaccinations or removing the threat (getting rid of malaria-spreading mosquitos).
If AIDS is ever 'cured' it will probably not be in curing existing infected but through a vaccine that stops new infections. When that vaccine is developed you can bet the American scientific illiterates will be right there making up stuff like they've done with Autism.
ONE of the studies said that only 10% of 'participants' took Truvada as directed. The article cited by Dan doesn't state that this particular study - one of many that made up the 10,000 strong test-group for the overall analysis - was a male-only study.
For info, a 1996 study found that 67-81% of women missed a contraceptive pill per month (this was measured electronically - and contrasted with the 40-47% of *self-reporting* pill missers). So yes, I do think that a LOT of women take their birth control inconsistently. The number taking pills late (and thereby reducing their efficacy) is probably in excess of the 81% flat-out missing a pill.
I stand by my opinion that the "LOL men are stoopid and immature" post was ridiculous and ill-informed.
Young people do stupid shit. It really sucks when that ends up following them for life... like when they kill somebody with a car, or give themselves an incurable disease.
Or a chance to not use condoms at all if the drug is guaranteed if taken perfectly?
36 Does this drug have bad side effects? That is very sad.
BTW I'm guessing this is all a result of the iPrEX, or PrEP, study, which you may care to look up on this magical thing called "a google" and not just rely on a NYTimes article.
A drug which will make a micro-organism based disease get worse if it is used improperly may as well have been designed by the micro-organism to make it stronger.
By the way, if you are reading this and you have antibiotic soaps or knives or cutting boards or clothing or whatever, please get rid of them. They are part of the problem in causing antibiotics to stop working. Plain soap works better and is easier on your hands and body any way.