Game-Changing HIV Shot Can’t Get to High-Risk Groups Fast Enough | Lenacapavir proved it's possible to prevent 100% of infections in women. Access and affordability are the next big hurdles.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-06-27/gilead-hiv-shot-lenacapavir-can-t-get-to-high-risk-groups-fast-enough?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTcxOTQ4Nzk3NywiZXhwIjoxNzIwMDkyNzc3LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJTRlFINFREV0xVNjgwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJBQkE5NzNFNjA3NkQ0NjMyODJFMDAyN0QyM0JDNTg5MyJ9.NTAH3_tdtOaaBW2JXjxnU3M-SBvC_A0rdtefadnEeI8Open linkView original on slrpnk.net157
Comments12
Damn, phase 3 double blind randomized study showing 100% effective? That's huge
"lenacapavir, a twice-yearly shot developed by Gilead Sciences for the prevention of HIV."
So its not a vaccine, but it would still be incredibly helpful in reducing the spread of of HIV.
You can keep your slut shaming to yourself.
Among other things your advice isn't an option for victims of rape, and in some parts of the world HIV is as widespread as rape.
Cool. I don't want anyone to get HIV whether they "fuck like a monkey" or not. Why do you?
Isn't less disease better than more? I won't argue with you about sex or other things that people have hangups about, but HIV is also transmissible through blood. There are people who got HIV and developed AIDS for reasons that are innocent in any reasonable context. If you're a first responder or good Samaritan, doctor, nurse, or find yourself in some other context where it's possible for uncontrolled mingling of blood, you're at risk of contracting HIV. If particularly vulnerable people can be completely protected, then everyone's odds will improve.
Humans are monkeys. We can’t not fuck like monkeys, it’s literally impossible.
Not quite. 🤓 Humans and monkeys are both primates.
https://youtu.be/CkO8k12QCP0?si=wsTmBlep_qKpEW3R
Just leaving this here for anyone who is curious about the subject
Humans are apes which are monkeys which are primates. Taxonomically speaking of course. In common parlance they can be considered distinct, but this isn’t scientifically accurate.
Your statement is like saying both iPhones and smart phones are phones. It’s technically true but it contains a logical error in you are implying a comparable status between one category and another category that contains the first.
Sounds like you lack an understanding of taxonomy. But, to be completely fair to you, that is a typical state of knowledge for monkeys.
Sadly access and affordability are inversely related to profits and stock price :<
Historically, the answer on this has involved charging very different amounts in different countries. This both enables some level of access by the poor and maximizes profits.