71–80 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Importantly, while the bacterial STIs were curable, Herpes was definitely not.
Herpes wasn't considered a disease at the time. It was not pathologized until later.
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ypa8nb/did-big-pharma...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that a bad thing? I don't know for the US, but in other countries you have mandatory tests (hepatitis, gonorrhea, many others) to do every 3 months in order to get the treatment. This alone makes you more protected than people who only use condoms as protection and think they don't need tests.
They only check Liver/HIV every 3 months (I have to ask for liver every 3, my doctor was going to do it only every 6). I make my doctor also do a full screening but by default he doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is no significant chance of untreatable disease, it is not 'irresponsible' to have a very active sex life. The irresponsibility stems purely from the danger. Without it, it becomes a moral issue and is quite different from 'irresponsible'. And yes, there are people who actively oppose any development of an HIV vaccine or cure due to their moral fear that people will start having more sex. The chaplain of the…
... why does the CDC have a chaplain? It's a non-military government organization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. I (annedoctally) heard several times stories about how today's youth (~20yo) doing more unprotected sex than my generation (~35yo) only because HIV "does not kill anymore" . If AIDS is actually curable, I would bet that all other STD would explode in the short term
Isn't there a lot of talk about how today's youth is much less likely to date/engage in sexual activity? So what you're saying is, they don't always have sex, but when they do it's unprotected? That sounds pretty normal to me.
could be but those two things needn't be mutually exclusive. maybe the youth is just more extreme in both directions whereas earlier people might have been more similar.
Hopefully it's cheap and/or Bill Gates starts throwing money into producing it if it passes clinical trials. I have a feeling that Africa is where AIDS does the most damage, and I doubt they can afford the $1000/mo. it will certainly cost in the States.
Antibody manufacture is not cheap. The antibodies are made by fusing the b-memory cells with mouse cancer, then putting the result in a bioreactor and filtering out the desired product, which must then be refrigerated. Drugs that use this technique commonly end in -MAB (for monoclonal antibody).
Well, 99% means eradication of the virus very quickly. People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave.
> People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave. The way you've phrased this, it sounds like you are casting "other hard to cure STDs" as a protective measure against the "threat of 1960s style of unprote…
I read it as him casting the threat of those 'hard to cure STDs' as an incentive for people to not take the 1% risk of HIV infection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Importantly, while the bacterial STIs were curable, Herpes was definitely not.
Herpes wasn't considered a disease at the time. It was not pathologized until later.
It's certainly a manageable one, and the stigma around it is silly, but if the common cold is a disease, then herpes is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My friends weren't wrapping it when I was in uni 6-10 years ago because every girl was on birth control.
That's horrible, and nonsensical for the time period. With the amount of advocacy, and information available. Why would ANYONE consider not using a condom in uncommitted relationships?
Well, 99% means eradication of the virus very quickly. People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave.
That's your takeaway from this interesting news? I don't understand how you jumped from this article to immediately drawing some opinions about sexual responsibility and behavior. The article has nothing to do with sex behavior, and HIV is hardly the sole deterrent for reckless sex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence. In the 2010s, getting HIV means that you are likely to live until... Your 70s. (Assuming you have access to medication.) The problem is that you need to take expensive medication for the rest of your life. And that you can infect other people.
> In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence. It has never been quick. > Without treatment, average survival time after infection with HIV is estimated to be 9 to 11 years, depending on the HIV subtype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Prognosis You may be thinking of the ~1 year survival times after an AIDS diagnosis, but HIV is usually latent for a decade after initial infection.
I've tried to do a brief search for earliest HIV (non-AIDS) diagnosis, but many websites use AIDS and HIV interchangeably.