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

81–90 of 163 posts

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

#81

Post by mike_hearn »

foldr wrote: post #65
mike_hearn wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's inaccurate. The vast majority of all cases are in men. For instance in America only 22% of HIV+ people are women. Our World In Data has a map that shows this visually: https://ourworldindata.org/hiv-aids The only place this isn't true is sub-Saharan Africa. As there's no biological explanation for that discrepancy it's been hypothesized that it's because in Africa a lot of reported HIV cases are fraudulent, du…

It's not inaccurate. More than half of the people currently living with HIV worldwide are women: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/infographics/girls-and-w... . https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/glob...

The phrasing "majority of all cases, especially in the developing world" implies that it's true everywhere. Even putting that aside, it's only the bizarre situation in Africa makes the statement technically true. If we interpret it in the way it was meant to be interpreted then the statement isn't really true because everywhere that has reliable data shows the opposite: men get it the most.

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

#83

Post by allenjhyang »

Animats wrote: post #14

Here's a talk by someone from Gilead from a few years ago about how it works.[1] Back then they were still testing on animals. It's amazing that a small-molecule drug can be that effective for six months. It's not a vaccine. It doesn't stimulate the immune system. Completely different mechanism. It's not a slow-release implanted thing, either. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmjn_7TeFUA

Really cool. Is the mechanism already used for other diseases? Or is this a first-of-its-kind application that'll open the door to using the mechanism for others?

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

#84

Post by foldr »

mike_hearn wrote: post #81
foldr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not inaccurate. More than half of the people currently living with HIV worldwide are women: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/infographics/girls-and-w... . https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/glob...

The phrasing "majority of all cases, especially in the developing world" implies that it's true everywhere. Even putting that aside, it's only the bizarre situation in Africa makes the statement technically true. If we interpret it in the way it was meant to be interpreted then the statement isn't really true because everywhere that has reliable data shows the opposite: men get it the most.

I don't think the 'especially' has that implication when you consider the context of the article that we're commenting on. It's true that women and girls make up the majority of people living with HIV worldwide, and this is especially true of the developing world. On the other hand, your statement that "the vast majority of all cases are in men" is simply false. Depending on the interpretation of 'vast', it's arguably not even true in much of the West. For example, in the UK, about a third of people living with HIV are women; in the US it's about a quarter.

There's nothing 'bizarre' about the situation in Africa. People's sexual behaviour is different in different societies, and this can obviously influence how STIs are distributed among different groups in the population.

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

#85

Post by [deleted] »

raylad wrote: post #48

This treatment does not in fact prevent HIV infection. It prevents infected cells from producing viable virus particles. Because of this, it seems very likely that if any patient being treated with this drug ever discontinued it, they could develop HIV quickly from cells that were already infected in their body that had been suppressed from producing virus particles but were no longer suppressed. I was not able to fi…

[deleted]

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

#86

Post by JumpCrisscross »

llm_trw wrote: post #23
skort wrote: post #21

Great news that it's so effective in women. Less great news is that availability to people who could use it the most is based on the whims of the drug maker.

It's amazing that we now have subscription medicine.

> amazing that we now have subscription medicine

Now? You don't keep up on your immunisations? Ever seen an old person's medicine cabinet?

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

#88

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> what they call AIDS that appears in HIV negative people and is essentially ignored by the public health community, as it's not supposed to exist

And people who test negative for influenza often show flu-like symptoms, must be a conspiracy.

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

#90

Post by [deleted] »

prmoustache wrote: post #50
sausagefeet wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? That makes it better? Living in the first world country means you don't make very human mistakes? It means life doesn't get in the way sometimes? Look, your view seems to be "people in first world countries should be acting how I think they should act, and I just can't imagine myself getting into this situation so that means they can't, and thus I'm going to treat them like they did something wrong". You don'…

Also living in a "first world country" vs "third world country" doesn't mean anything at all. Personal situation, social class and wealth are the key parameters as is financement of specific drug by social security and private insurances.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN