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

Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 163 posts

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#151

Post by raylad »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #108
raylad wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The references you provided are prescribing information and to other drugs which actually are anti-retroviral. You did not provide any reference showing that cells that are actually infected but inhibited from producing virus through late stage assembly inhibitors are effectively eliminated by the immune system.

> references you provided are prescribing information and to other drugs which actually are anti-retroviral The first reference is for literally this drug. > did not provide any reference showing that cells that are actually infected but inhibited from producing virus through late stage assembly inhibitors are effectively eliminated by the immune system I did not because this is the normal function of the immune syst…

Right. It’s prescribing information.

As per whether infected cells that don’t display any evidence of virus on their surfaces would somehow be detected and killed or would undergo apoptosis, that might happen but I don’t find any evidence that it does.

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#152

Post by jcul »

IshKebab wrote: post #132
m3kw9 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seen these on commercial, I wish they stop with commercial for meds. Depressing asf, keep reminding me of my mortality while I’m trying to relax and enjoy a moment

Definitely one of the weird things I noticed in America. Most countries do not have medical adverts, for obvious reasons.

Yeah was going to comment the same. Always really strange to see so many adverts for medication when I visit the US.

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#153

Post by thaumasiotes »

n4r9 wrote: post #96
thaumasiotes wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Jumping on you, bleeding, having a nightmare, making possibly-chocking-sounds, running away with your pills, vomiting on the floor, etc. will definitely take priority over whatever you thought you were going to do after waking up. No, you're just desperately hoping to imagine a scenario that might make it difficult to take a pill with a one-minute take-it-now-or-die window. You're crazy, and you should try to refra…

This comment is dismissive and needlessly insulting. Calling people crazy is a surefire way to stop them from listening. But I get some amusement from imagining the look on my wife's face if she saw me leaving a vomit-covered rug to go and take some vitamin pills.

> But I get some amusement from imagining the look on my wife's face if she saw me leaving a vomit-covered rug to go and take some vitamin pills.

That is because you know and she knows that the vitamins are unimportant.

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#154

Post by viraptor »

b112 wrote: post #137
viraptor wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because there's nothing the kids can be doing that won't wait for that. I feel you don't have young kids then. Jumping on you, bleeding, having a nightmare, making possibly-chocking-sounds, running away with your pills, vomiting on the floor, etc. will definitely take priority over whatever you thought you were going to do after waking up. And that doesn't even touch on people with executive functions issues. Or th…

Do you miss urinating? Drinking water instead of dying? It's literally all the same thing. I wake up. I do wake up stuff . If there's some disturbance, some emergency, I still have to go to the bathroom, drink, and yes take vitamins eventually. It's insanely simple beyond all belief. You just need to form a habit, that's all. "Take vitamins when first drinking water in the morning", or coffee, or whatever. Done. Done…

Are you asking me specifically? Then yeah, I have executive functions issues, like a not insignificant number of tech people here. So the idea of "just form a habit" just doesn't apply the same way in that group.

If you're asking in general, then the statistics show this is a problem in general population. Regardless of the specific reasons for it, people can't take daily pills perfectly on schedule.

"Compliance to antihypertensive treatment was found in only 15% of the patients." (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15942423/)

"In the treatment of HIV and AIDS, adherence to antiretroviral agents varies between 37% and 83% depending on the drug under study (10, 11) and the demographic characteristics of patient populations" (https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/42682/9?sequence...)

When you look at this as a population overview and you say you're got a routine and have a 100% compliance rate - you are the anomaly! But that also means your "just do ..." does not generalise for multiple reasons.

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#155

Post by roywiggins »

mike_hearn wrote: post #80
roywiggins wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HIV isn't a biomarker, it's the cause of AIDS. People without detectable HIV don't develop AIDS. People with HIV and on ARVs don't develop AIDS either, and any study that watched people contract HIV but didn't provide their participants with ARVs would be both unethical and pointless.

By definition anything that isn't the actual disease is a biomarker proxy for it. What actually matters is disease. > People without detectable HIV don't develop AIDS. An AIDS diagnosis requires the presence of HIV so your statement is a tautology (not your fault). If we rephrase to what you meant, that people without detectable HIV don't develop AIDS or any identical set of symptoms, then actually they do but when i…

why should anyone care whether a drug that targets HIV has any effect on medical conditions that aren't caused by HIV? you wouldn't expect it to!

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#156

Post by Dylan16807 »

magicalhippo wrote: post #45
gadders wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are dumb.

I recently had to take some antibiotics. Three times a day for two weeks. After about a week I found I started to forget taking them, or getting confused if I had already taken it that morning/afternoon or not. At the end of my two week stint I had a few pills left, so clearly I had f'ed something up along the way. Gave me a refreshed perspective on just how difficult it can be to do the seemingly simplest things.

Well that's what a pill holder is for.

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#157

Post by bobthepanda »

9x39 wrote: post #150
bobthepanda wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This varies between countries. In South Africa, the country with the largest HIV positive population, women have double the HIV incidence of men. https://sph.brown.edu/news/2024-11-07/south-africa-hiv-obste...

That’s interesting that the gendering is reversed in Africa. Why do you think that is? The linked article didn’t try to explain it. The OP article covered Mexico which remains closer to the US in outcomes being heavily male-gendered. https://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/mexico https://www.statista.com/statistics/941203/distribution-indi...

my understanding is that

* condom use is much lower in sub-Saharan Africa

* polygamy, specifically a man with multiple wives, is also more common in sub-Saharan Africa

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#158

Post by mike_hearn »

roywiggins wrote: post #155
mike_hearn wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By definition anything that isn't the actual disease is a biomarker proxy for it. What actually matters is disease. > People without detectable HIV don't develop AIDS. An AIDS diagnosis requires the presence of HIV so your statement is a tautology (not your fault). If we rephrase to what you meant, that people without detectable HIV don't develop AIDS or any identical set of symptoms, then actually they do but when i…

why should anyone care whether a drug that targets HIV has any effect on medical conditions that aren't caused by HIV ? you wouldn't expect it to!

They care because they think the claim that AIDS is caused by HIV is wrong, and that AIDS/ICL are in reality the same thing with a shared root cause.

The claim of a viral cause came from Team Fauci in the 90s, who we now know are all pathological liars who happily conspire with each other for their own ends. We can read the Slack logs where they arrange their conspiracies, even. Back then there were renegade virologists and journalists who claimed there was a coverup by virologists in progress, and the inventor of the PCR test agreed with them, but they were ignored because people thought scientists were ideal people who would never do things like that. That was wrong, so the prior for there being a COVID style problem back then too should be strong.

It's reasonable to disagree with that perspective, of course. You can point to pieces of evidence, other people can debate them. It's not reasonable to be like JumpCrisscross and simply roll your eyes at claims of medical malfeasance anymore - that's a severe case of non-memo-getting at this point. A rational person should default to assuming anything involving Fauci and virologists is unreliable. When Nobel-prize winning scientists and journalists speak up and provide a great deal of detail on an alleged conspiracy, priors should then get stronger (and they did). When Pharma companies do tests that implicitly claim to cure AIDS but don't actually test that claim, they should get stronger still.

Or you can be like JumpCrisscross and continue eye-rolling at anyone who has lost trust in the institutions. Don't be like that!

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#159

Post by RHSeeger »

n4r9 wrote: post #115
RHSeeger wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a diabetic that needs to take their insulin at the same time every day... set an alarm? It is inconvenient, sure? But if you value your health then it's worth it. And if you don't value your health, why do you care if the medicine is less effective?

Sure, but the question is... What's more convenient and likely to be followed: a 6-monthly jab or a daily pill? not... Is it possible to remember to do something everyday?

That's fair, but that wasn't actually the question

> Do you have kids, if so how do you deal with frequent disruptions to the morning routine? Do you not have days where you just need to get up and go e.g. to catch a flight, get to a meeting, take a kid to school, or because you stayed up late and got drunk, etc... and taking vitamins took a back seat?

What's being asked here was "do you have days where you won't bother to take your medicine". And my point was, as a diabetic... no, I don't. I do it every day at pretty much the same time. And I expect most people could do exactly the same. Having children or wanting to stay out late drinking doesn't change that.

That being said, I 100% that I would prefer one shot every 6 months, if that was an option (I take 2 shots per day at the same times, and then 2-8 more over the course of the day)

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#160

Post by [deleted] »

mike_hearn wrote: post #158
roywiggins wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why should anyone care whether a drug that targets HIV has any effect on medical conditions that aren't caused by HIV ? you wouldn't expect it to!

They care because they think the claim that AIDS is caused by HIV is wrong, and that AIDS/ICL are in reality the same thing with a shared root cause. The claim of a viral cause came from Team Fauci in the 90s, who we now know are all pathological liars who happily conspire with each other for their own ends. We can read the Slack logs where they arrange their conspiracies, even. Back then there were renegade virologi…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN