481–490 of 490 posts
The them.us article [0] says: > but we’ll be praying ... that by next year, LGBTQ+ communities around the globe will have a new reason to celebrate. This perpetuates the myth that HIV is mainly a problem for gay people. Can we change to another article, such as [1]? The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supports Moderna's HIV vaccine research [2]. [0] https://www.them.us/story/hiv-aids-vaccine-human-trials-mode... [1]…
I have a friend who has HIV with a zero virus count. Does anyone know if this will combat the latent virus?
I would love to be corrected though.
Will you still be able catch HIV and pass it on to others all the same, with "lesser symptoms", until the day you die from HIV? The post 2021 changed definition of "vaccine" is a bit of any oxymoron.
Will you still be able catch HIV and pass it on to others all the same, with "lesser symptoms", until the day you die from HIV? The post 2021 changed definition of "vaccine" is a bit of any oxymoron.
What change? Vaccines have never been said to be 100% effective on an individual basis.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25411126...
Were previous vaccines at least as effective as not getting vaccinated? Ontario data is showing vaccinated getting infected at higher rates than unvaccinated. (3rd grahp) https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data?fbclid=1
If that's the case, its more like a therapeutic than vaccine. Literally going out to get some sunshine is therapeutic.
I'm sure billion dollar pharma companies love that they can sell half baked products to this lower standard going forward.
At least for most other products you can get a refund for something that doesn't work half the time. In this situation you can't even sue if it caused you injury. Hope you don't support this corrupt fuckry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might maybe be because a lot of effort is now poured on mid to end of life care, with the improving life expectancy? So the science behind pushing along a decaying body gets better?
I sure hope so! I don't have HIV but I do have a genetic disorder that's wrecking my body. I'm determined to live as long as possible.
And as it's 'just' prevention, it's hard to know whether it will reliably improve this individual outcome...
I have a friend who has HIV with a zero virus count. Does anyone know if this will combat the latent virus?
From what I've read, no. Once you're U=U, it seems like no treatment can rid the virus completely. I would love to be corrected though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The slow part is the safety testing right? If we had a robust enough theory of vaccines safety we could reduce that. How are the yearly flu shots tested anyway? Now, I would not take such a HIV shot. But for high risk groups, think promiscious homosexuals, it may eventually be worth it.
If we had robust enough theory of vaccine testing it wouldn’t matter what kind of vaccine you develop, right?
1. The same mechanism of deliver is used so it's already tested and know to be safe/effective.
2. It replicates the same protein(s) found on the virus. So it will not due more damage than getting the virus and it will have a high probability of being effective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree in that no straight people (that i know) consider PrEP, although according to a quick search the HIV prevalence rate is twenty times lower in my country compared to the US. Obviously the human brain statistician goes out the window when comparing a lifelong illness with a few hours of discomfort, but would it be generally safe/worth it to put the entire population on PrEP during sexual activity? I heard that…
As a person on PrEP, it is only recommended for people at higher risk of HIV. In the West, that does not include sexually active straight people unless you have other confounding factors (e.g. IV drug use, partners who are at higher risk, etc.). Essentially all gay men (or, more accurately, "men who have sex with men") are at higher risk, which is why it is recommended for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a person on PrEP, it is only recommended for people at higher risk of HIV. In the West, that does not include sexually active straight people unless you have other confounding factors (e.g. IV drug use, partners who are at higher risk, etc.). Essentially all gay men (or, more accurately, "men who have sex with men") are at higher risk, which is why it is recommended for them.
Gay men living in cities also have many more sexual partners than the rest of the populous. The men I’ve met who have had 1000+ partners is exclusive to gay men. I’ve yet to meet a straight man who isn’t a celebrity that has gotten anywhere near that. Yet this order of magnitude (100-1000) is common among gay men. The risk levels for your average young straight man in the west are obscenely low these days. You’ll hav…
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/82330.php
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4936006
You know, let me link the whole Wikipedia article on this very topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity#Gay_men_(homosex...
Anyways, in absolute numbers now there’s more heterosexual people who are testing positive for HIV than gay people in the West (and it’s been the case globally for a while, too)
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...