[flagged]
This is a shocking lack of empathy and understanding of the connectedness of the planet.
The global fight against HIV is at risk
31–40 of 106 posts
Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk
#32> global fight it sounds like this is mostly about the US?
It is about PEPFAR, a massively successful US foreign aid program.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Emergency_Plan_f...
Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
When a cure for hepatitis c was discovered (solvating iirc), everyone started screaming give it away for free instead of paying the price (~$100k). 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 cert…
Im sorry, but I don’t understand what you’re saying. There’s no identifiable subjects. 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?
The brand name was Sovaldi, feel free to set filter on Google to the time of release and read various newspapers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofosbuvir#Society_and_cultu...
> In April 2014, U.S. House Democrats Henry Waxman, Frank Pallone Jr., and Diana DeGette wrote Gilead Sciences Inc. questioning the $84,000 price for sofosbuvir. They specifically asked Gilead CEO John Martin to "explain how the drug was priced, what discounts are being made available to low-income patients and government health programs, and the potential impact to public health by insurers blocking or delaying access to the medicine because of its cost."
Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk
#34I’m going to be very mad if there is a resurgence in HIV because of the asinine GOP. If people have to be worried again about their next sexual contact (condoms only offer between 70-90% protection against HIV), we will return to a prudish lifestyle again at a time the west can least afford it with falling birth rates.
A prudish lifestyle means marriage instead of promiscuity, abortions will decrease and the birth rate will rise.
Not really. Most abortions are women who already have children. Once upon a time, this meant that most abortions were carried out by married women (marriage itself is less common now).
The connection between marriage and abortion isn't what you think it is.
Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk
#35I’m going to be very mad if there is a resurgence in HIV because of the asinine GOP. If people have to be worried again about their next sexual contact (condoms only offer between 70-90% protection against HIV), we will return to a prudish lifestyle again at a time the west can least afford it with falling birth rates.
condoms only offer between 70-90% protection against HIV PrEP offers 100% protection against HIV.
[deleted]
Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've got this so twisted that I'm not sure where to begin explaining. Maybe this CDC link can help you: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html A relevant quote: > Many of these state laws, then and now, criminalize actions that cannot transmit HIV – such as biting or spitting – and apply regardless of actual transmission, or intent. After more than 40 years of HIV research and significant biomedi…
[flagged]
If not for your benefit, then for everyone else's; here are the DOJ's recommendations for modernization[1], from a sub-link of the above:
> Generally, the best practice would be for states to reform these laws to eliminate HIV- specific criminal penalties except in two distinct circumstances. First, states may wish to retain criminal liability when a person who knows he/she is HIV positive commits a (non-HIV specific) sex crime where there is a risk of transmission (e.g., rape or other sexual assault). The second circumstance is where the individual knows he/she is HIV positive and the evidence clearly demonstrates that individual’s intent was to transmit the virus and that the behavior engaged in had a significant risk of transmission, whether or not transmission actually occurred.
> For states that choose to retain HIV-specific criminal laws or penalty enhancements beyond these two limited circumstances, the best practice would be to reform and modernize them so that they accurately reflect the current science of risk and modes of transmission, the quality of life and life span of individuals who are living with HIV, account for circumstances where the failure to disclose is directly related to intimate partner violence, and ensure they are the desired vehicle to achieve the states’ intended purpose in enacting them initially or retaining them in modernized form.
[The document continues with specific, scientifically backed advice that would help inform HIV-specific statutes.]
1: https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DOj-HIV-...
---
As for you in particular, I'm not sure who's culture warring here. Maybe this discussion would be more interesting if you provided a tangible argument based in health or science rather than vague political gesturing.
Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk
#37One thing I'm confused about is why HIV at-home tests are not more available. There's Oraquick (https://oraquick.com/), which in bulk is $15/test, whereas its about $40 retail. On the other hand, we've gotten COVID tests down to something like $5 retail. On top of that, it's relatively easy to get free COVID tests.
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.
Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've got this so twisted that I'm not sure where to begin explaining. Maybe this CDC link can help you: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html A relevant quote: > Many of these state laws, then and now, criminalize actions that cannot transmit HIV – such as biting or spitting – and apply regardless of actual transmission, or intent. After more than 40 years of HIV research and significant biomedi…
[flagged]
[dead]
Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk
#39One thing I'm confused about is why HIV at-home tests are not more available. There's Oraquick ( https://oraquick.com/ ), which in bulk is $15/test, whereas its about $40 retail. On the other hand, we've gotten COVID tests down to something like $5 retail. On top of that, it's relatively easy to get free COVID tests. Imagine if you could test for this right before you "got down." I imagine that'd change the game. Alt…
I dont understand the last paragraph. Condoms have been widely used for decades, is there a debate similar to masks?
Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk
#40The tl;dr portion relevant to the title is buried in the middle of one of the paragraphs:
> 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.