Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 237 posts

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#121

Post by Nasrudith »

StreamBright wrote: post #67
malandrew wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, we’re paying obscene prices because no other country pays their fair share to recoup the cost of development plus bringing the drug to market plus a reasonable margin for the effort. The US should establish an agreement whereby US patients pay a LOT less but that the foreign patients need to pay the same. The amount the industry earns should be low enough to make it reasonably financially accessible to pat…

You are paying this much because of many reasons non of them is why the rest of the world does not pay its fair share. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/08061...

Monosopy doesn't depend upon anything the US does. They have local control of IP even if they tied it to others.

There would be costs involved but they can always tell them to get stuffed and manufacture their own if they won't be reasonable. Notably there is a lack of pharmaceutical companies who decide to abandon world markets entirely because positive N is always greater than 0.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#122

Post by WillDaSilva »

andy_ppp wrote: post #49
wsc981 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps more countries should follow Thailand's approach: On January 25, 2007, Thailand’s interim government issued compulsory licenses–which require manufacturers to license generic versions of their patented drugs–for two Western medicines: Kaletra, an advanced anti-AIDS medicine manufactured by Abbott; and Plavix, a blood-thinning treatment to help prevent heart disease, produced by the France-based Sanofi-Aventis…

Quoting like this makes it impossible to read on mobile. Not your fault but “speech marks” are fine.

Are you using an app such as Materialistic or Hews, or just using your browser? For what it's worth I don't recall any problems reading quote blocks on Materialistic.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#123

Post by soVeryTired »

nerdjon wrote: post #119
Geimfari wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be men-who-have-sex-with-men, those with infected partners, sex workers, and intravenous drug users. That is a fairly large number of the population that would be placed on an expensive drug with several side effects.

I would honestly just say anyone that is not in a monogamous relationship. Straight men/women can easily have it and one fuckup and you can be infected

If you give penicillin to a million people, about two hundred of them will go into anaphylactic shock. Sometimes the tail risks for taking drugs are more harmful than the condition they're trying to prevent or treat.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#124

Post by ShlomoS »

quotemstr wrote: post #114
blablabla123 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if that's true though. I don't have a medicine background but I'm loosely following this development. I think the term drug resistance became popular with all these tuberculosis cases. What happened was that people got TB, they went to the doctor and got medicine. Then things got better and people felt healthy again so they stopped taking their medicine. BUT in reality they were supposed to take it for a lon…

Right. For resistance to evolve, some part of the treated population must survive. (You can't evolve resistance to atomic weapons dropped on your head.) Is PReP really effective enough to ensure that there are no survivors? Sure, maybe it is, used correctly at therapeutic doses. What if it becomes common enough to get into the water at much lower doses? What if people split pills to reduce costs? ISTM that there are…

>Is PReP really effective enough to ensure that there are no survivors?

No, the first bug chaser to successfully contract HIV while on it was quite proud of his achievement. Clearly the virus can survive.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#125

Post by luckylion »

nerdjon wrote: post #119
Geimfari wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be men-who-have-sex-with-men, those with infected partners, sex workers, and intravenous drug users. That is a fairly large number of the population that would be placed on an expensive drug with several side effects.

I would honestly just say anyone that is not in a monogamous relationship. Straight men/women can easily have it and one fuckup and you can be infected

> Straight men/women can easily have it and one fuckup and you can be infected

The probability is low though, and apparently there are side effects. We also don't preemptively dish out antibiotics for similar reasons: they won't do you any good unless under very specific circumstances and you will likely experience side-effects. Do no harm.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#126

Post by nerdjon »

luckylion wrote: post #125
nerdjon wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would honestly just say anyone that is not in a monogamous relationship. Straight men/women can easily have it and one fuckup and you can be infected

> Straight men/women can easily have it and one fuckup and you can be infected The probability is low though, and apparently there are side effects. We also don't preemptively dish out antibiotics for similar reasons: they won't do you any good unless under very specific circumstances and you will likely experience side-effects. Do no harm.

yes there are side effects.

But the plan for prep also specifically includes you going into the doctor every 3 months to not only test for those side effects but also for a full STD panel. (Source: my husband and me are both on prep)

Just saying that "at risk" people should be trying to prevent this ignores a large portion of the population to try to stop its spread.

Thankfully a vaccine is in testing now, but if this was a vaccine most people would probably not question taking it. So why is a pill to protect against something like HIV so much different?

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#127

Post by selimthegrim »

bsagdiyev wrote: post #23
himlion wrote: post #22

Probably because homosexuality doesn't fit their 19th century worldview

Or some people take it and engage in risky sexual behavior because they're now on it. I know more than a few people like that. Not everyone is a backwards hick, you're just virtue signalling.

Maybe try not having Borat as a throwaway before using the words ‘virtue signaling’

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#128

Post by driverdan »

nness wrote: post #90
lm28469 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Miracle drug with unknown long term side effects* I wouldn't take it unless I was a non monogamous gay man[0], the risks out-weights the benefits in any other demographics imho. [0] not that I have anything against that per say, it's just statistically the most affected demographic

I don't follow your comment; The drug is intended for those people at risk of contracting the disease. Why would you take PrEP if you weren't at risk? (Your also discounting drug users; but unfortunately those addicted and at risk are also the least likely to have the means to acquire the drug.)

> Your also discounting drug users

If a drug user is doing something as stupid as sharing needles they're likely not in the right state of mind to take PrEP.

Re: Alarming surge in drug-resistant HIV uncovered

#130

Post by [deleted] »

Geimfari wrote: post #116
jimbob45 wrote: post #2

Well, PrEP is a miracle drug that has gone criminally underutilized in the fight to eradicate HIV. It would be nice to see governments really push it hard for a change.

The drug has several non-minor side effects, is prohibitively expensive, and is the same as the treatment for someone who already has the virus. I for one think it's improper to prescribe a drug with these nephrological side effects to a large number of otherwise healthy individuals, not even accounting for the cost.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN