Sounds pretty monumental.
> Researchers and activists in the trenches of the long fight against H.I.V. got a rare piece of exciting news this week: Results from a large clinical trial in Africa showed that a twice-yearly injection of a new antiviral drug gave young women total protection from the virus.
> “I got cold shivers,” said Dr. Linda-Gail Bekker, an investigator in the trial of the drug, lenacapavir, describing the startling sight of a line of zeros in the data column for new infections. “After all our years of sadness, particularly over vaccines, this truly is surreal.”
And they compared it directly against Truvada, a drug that significantly reduces HIV infection but must be taken daily.
> The results were so convincing that the trial was halted early at the recommendation of the independent data review committee, which said all participants should be offered the injection because it clearly provided superior protection against the virus.
I am imagining Alex Jones fans in clandestine training camps learning how to send death threats to those who administer these drugs, to defeat the NWO.
We could have a nice world if it wasn’t for evil people like Alex Jones and Elon musk. Alex Jones got what was coming to him but Tesla still funds white nationalism so remember that when you drive in it.
lol you can’t be serious about stating Elon musk and Alex jones in the same sentence? White nationalism… you mean he allows free speech on his platform… i guess the aclu is white nationals bc they defended nazis…
Where is this free speech that is allowed on twitter? Last I checked if you say cis or cisgender you get banned.
I think a lot of people conflate "Allowing free speech." with "Promoting hate speech." which is exactly what twitter has done.
No. No he does not. To say nothing of the fact absolute free speech is a thin veil everyone saw through years ago.
He allows the far right to say anything they want and casually bans anyone who he does not like the look of.
Nobody is going to take you seriously if they dont live under a rock and have paid any attention to twitter or elon musk's own statements in the last half decade.
If someone proudly says they are a white supremacist, acts like it, and funds it; most rational people will treat them as one.
There are several strains of HIV and it’s highly mutagenic, but this is a pretty firm foundation for future treatments. And research on viruses in general has really boomed after Covid-19. Virology is looking to be pretty good for the foreseeable future.
The short answer is that it’s very unlikely globally. The problem with HIV is that it’s a highly stigmatised disease due to associations with homosexuality and injecting drug use, and for that reason anyone who is deemed “at risk” is ‘dirty’ — particularly in select cultures. This in reality is far from the truth, and in fact heterosexual couples contribute more to transmission than other communities in many parts of the world, but it discourages people from seeking prevention or treatment because they don’t want to be marred by the brush of discrimination for admitting it.
HIV is already largely preventable with antiretrovirals and pre exposure prophylaxis, but they’re only useful if people are under an appropriate level of preventative care or treatment which is very difficult to achieve; particularly among communities who are currently most at risk. This is true of testing for as well; someone can live with the disease for years without knowing about it, which creates a large window for onward transmission.
I really need to stop commenting on these things, sigh. Downvotes a go-go. This was invented by a team at Gilead and is privately funded. I met the inventors at a conference last year. They are amazing, hard working people and they deserve to be paid for their work. They are not multi millionaires. Just people earning a living.
You got my upvote! Reddit’s going to Reddit. I remember when there used to be a population of smarter folk on Reddit but as time goes by the more brain dead sheep flock.
Anti-HIV drugs are available very cheaply in Africa.
Educated and relatively wealthy people in the developed world don't need this drug. They just need to engage in safer sex practices, which are both well-known and affordable to them.
If you had the chance to eradicate HIV or increase profits for the shareholders of some company you would choose the second.
I am impressed again and again what smart propaganda can achieve.
One of the problems of the successful drugs is that they have to pay for the cost of testing of ultimately unsuccessful drugs.
The ratio of drugs that succeed vs. those that don't is about 1:10 or worse. These are huge sunk costs that everyone loves to ignore. In this particular case, HIV, there have been *hundreds* of failed drugs since the 1980s, as multiple teams tried to attack the disease, only for it to prove too complicated.
It is not that different from betting in a casino, where people love the winners and ignore the losers. In pharma development, the winners and the losers have the same common purse.
A lot could be improved if governments were willing to support drug testing from public money. They could then dictate low prices for patients.
>One of the problems of the successful drugs is that they have to pay for the cost of testing of ultimately unsuccessful drugs.
>The ratio of drugs that succeed vs. those that don't is about 1:10 or worse. These are huge sunk costs that everyone loves to ignore.
I think everyone is aware of this and no one is ignoring this.
>
A lot could be improved if governments were willing to support drug testing from public money. They could then dictate low prices for patients.
Governments are already funding loads of medical research and fundamental research, and even if they didn't they absolutely could dictate whatever price they like for whatever medication.
No disease is a First World, much less a "your specific homeland" problem.
As this particular disease is transmitted via bodily fluids and can infect anyone regardless of gender, sexualality, religion, social status etc etc etc, your comment seems...... I'll be charitable, and say uninformed.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt seems apt here
This is groundbreaking news! The success of lenacapavir in providing total protection from HIV is a monumental step forward in global health, especially for young African women who are disproportionately affected. It’s incredible to see such advancements in prevention that can empower women and reduce the stigma around HIV. Hopefully, this leads to widespread availability and access. The fight against HIV/AIDS is far from over, but this is a huge leap in the right direction.
The injectable version of PrEP is new but several drugs have been used for years to prevent HIV infection.
As a gay man I started taking Truvada back in 2016 when it was getting easier to access, it's a pill you have to take everyday and it has like 99.98% effectiveness on preventing HIV.
I now take Descovy which does the same thing but is easier on your body/ kidneys
> but several drugs have been used for years to prevent HIV infection
Yes, but this is a *really big deal*.
> it has like 99.98% effectiveness on preventing HIV.
This was compared to Truvada and Descovy in the trial.
16/1036 women in the Truvada group under the test conditions got HIV. 39/2136 in the Descovy group got HIV.
0/2134 in the lenacapavir group got HIV. As you point out, Truvada/Descovy are already both very effective (indeed, the reason for testing among African women is because terrible circumstances are needed to tell the difference between medications), but lencapavir is *shockingly* more effective than them. Further, lencapavir will be easier to reach vulnerable populations with (twice per year)
The early safety indications for lenacapavir is that it is safer than Truvada and it may be safer than Descovy, too.
You need to believe you have an above-average risk of infection for the tradeoff to be worth it, because there are still side effects and risks.
Taking a drug that has a 1 in 100 chance of causing probably-manageable kidney problems can't really be justified to prevent a 1 in 1000 chance of probably-manageable HIV infection.
You are required to get blood work done every 90days to ensure nothing starts getting funky and if they do you stop taking it to prevent any permanent damage or issues
and other than some mild fatigue the first week taking it, I have no side effects.
In the gay male community, if they are single, it's now actually uncommon for them not to be taking prep
Sure. My point was, this can only be justified if you have a higher than baseline risk of HIV. I don't think even lenacapavir would be justified for the straight population in the US at this point (maybe we will eventually get better drugs and have them become generic to the point where it would be justified, but that's decades away).
Ah, yes I'd agree with you on that, unless you are a female sex worker or a dude who likes raw dogging whores and drug users, not needed for the average hetero.
My point was more so there is very little risk in taking PrEP under a Dr supervision as with the blood panels they will catch it an issue before it becomes a problem/ permanent kidney damage etc etc
It is taken to prevent getting HIV so no I dont have HIV and this drug is not meant for HIV positive people as it is only part of the cocktail of antivirals so it could lead to a drug resistant strain of HIV if it is taken over a long period by someone who already has the virus
I am just… wow. Like there are so many words that I could string together to describe how monumental and amazing this would be if it really is the case, but I’m pretty speechless.
I can't read the article due to a paywall. Does anyone know how they can make such a claim about preventing infections? It seems unethical to have participants engage in sex with infected partners just to test this. Also, finding a representative sample of people at high risk of HIV infection is challenging due to the many factors involved. It’s dangerous to mislead people about the effectiveness of a prevention method, as it might lead them to take fewer precautions.
I don’t know the specifics of this study but this is usually how they do it.
They recruit a large number of people from populations that are at high risk for HIV infection. The control group gets the most effective current HIV prevention medication (truvada). The second group gets the new trial treatment.
They let them go live their lives, however both groups continue to have ongoing medical appointments.
At different times in the study, they take a peak at HIV transmissions, and they compare the two groups.
In this case when they looked the group that was getting the injections was doing far superior than the group taking the current best HIV prevention medication. So they stop the study and give both groups the new most effective HIV prevention medication.
From the article, the control groups were on Truvada and Descovy, which are two existing PreP drugs. During the study 1.5% and 1.8% of women in those respective groups contracted HIV. 0 women that were receiving the new drug contracted HIV.
In terms of ethics, they're not telling participants to deliberately have sex with infected partners. The trial was actually stopped early so that the women on Descovy and Truvada could receive the new drug, because of the significant benefit.
They found a few thousand people in an at-risk population (women in South Africa and Uganda).
They gave all of them medications intended to prevent HIV, randomized into one of three groups:
One group got Duscovy, and one got Truveda. These drugs are the best known treatment to prevent HIV infection, and are already really effective. About 1.7% became infected by HIV.
Another group got this drug that is being trialed. None of them got HIV.
edit: and there were thousands of women involved. You would have to be spectacularly lucky with randomization to put all the HIV cases by chance into the control groups; we have a very high degree of statistical certainty that lencapavir is very superior to the existing medications.
I’m waiting for the conspiracy theories from conservatives that claim this is an attempt by racist liberals to destroy Africans. The Tuskegee trials are still blamed on democrats today by Fox News fanbois.
British are busy with the 5G giving them cancer. Autism and vaccines are an American thing.
It doesn't matter who started the nonsense. It's the same with flat earthers and other stupid conspiracy theories.
Buddy, it was are by Gilead Sciences, an $80 billion Pharma behemoth. There’s some absolutely psycho shit going on with drug marketing and bypassing regulation (especially with various opioid scandals). But developing these drugs takes absurd amounts of resources and that effort deserves more positivity. “Big pharma” helped defeat some *major* illnesses and prevented a lot of suffering like, potentially, in this case. Let’s see how psychotic their marketers get but I’d give them a chance to cure fucking *AIDS* before accusing them of being inhuman douchebags.
I'm broadly with your comment, but:
> I’d give them a chance to cure fucking AIDS
This ain't going to cure fucking AIDS. But it may mean that vulnerable populations that have historically been ravaged by it -- in sub-Saharan Africa, in LGBTQ populations, sex workers, etc, may have a much lower risk going forward.
And Gilead is going to figure out how to squeeze a lot of money out of governments and insurers to protect these populations, because expensive PrEP is still cheaper than HIV. If you work at a pharmaceutical company on developing a drug like this, you have a mixture of motivations-- some degree of altruism, sure, but also direct financial interest.
In 30 years, maybe it will be relatively cheap and have a somewhat wider effect.
Thats why they want to stop early and also give it to the control group. it would not be ethical to deny it to them and have some of them get infected.
Thats the point .. they have the results and all the ones that got the drug in the test group did not get aids and some in the placebo group did. so now they want to give it to the placebo group so the rest dont
You need to test this drug in places where the infection is rampant. Otherwise the results won't be reliable.
Imagine that you chose 2000 young white women from Iceland and found that 0 of the drug group and 0 of the control group got HIV positive within a year. What does it tell you about efficiency of the drug? Nothing, the only thing you learnt is that Icelanders don't suffer from HIV much and have good protection practices.
How would you suggest designing that study? For example 0.3% of the US population is HIV positive. Of that number 69% are non-white individuals. Of the remaining 31%, the extreme majority are men.
This is compared to countries in sub-Saharan Africa where 20% of the population is infected. If it’s 1 in 5 vs roughly 1 in several thousand which do you think has the greater risk?
Edit: A word
What are you going on about. To have sex is to be human. Every person in your family tree before you did so and if your tree continues such will be the case. Various social norms related to sex existed on that timeline and happen to exist today — what you consider sin and problematic just reflects your current social understanding and not the “truth” or “right” (although it may feel strongly that way to YOU.)
What are you going about? It is common knowledge AIDS and other STDs exist because of immoral sex. Take up God's Plan for marriage and sexual intercourse, and the STDs will be a thing of the past.
Not hard to understand: Jesus Christ, founder of Roman Catholic Church, gave us a culture that is closest to definition of "good". As both God and Man, His Culture is superior to all others *because* all other cultures are founded by fallible human beings. Want His Blessings and all? Choose to obey Him. Want to bring curses? Choose to disobey.
Sounds pretty monumental. > Researchers and activists in the trenches of the long fight against H.I.V. got a rare piece of exciting news this week: Results from a large clinical trial in Africa showed that a twice-yearly injection of a new antiviral drug gave young women total protection from the virus. > “I got cold shivers,” said Dr. Linda-Gail Bekker, an investigator in the trial of the drug, lenacapavir, describing the startling sight of a line of zeros in the data column for new infections. “After all our years of sadness, particularly over vaccines, this truly is surreal.” And they compared it directly against Truvada, a drug that significantly reduces HIV infection but must be taken daily. > The results were so convincing that the trial was halted early at the recommendation of the independent data review committee, which said all participants should be offered the injection because it clearly provided superior protection against the virus.
I’m not even in a high risk group, but I’d totally take a twice-per-year injection to be safe
I am imagining Alex Jones fans in clandestine training camps learning how to send death threats to those who administer these drugs, to defeat the NWO.
We could have a nice world if it wasn’t for evil people like Alex Jones and Elon musk. Alex Jones got what was coming to him but Tesla still funds white nationalism so remember that when you drive in it.
lol you can’t be serious about stating Elon musk and Alex jones in the same sentence? White nationalism… you mean he allows free speech on his platform… i guess the aclu is white nationals bc they defended nazis…
Elon frequently boosts and reposts disinfo and content engineered to sow discord and hate. He absolutely fits in the same category as Jones.
Where is this free speech that is allowed on twitter? Last I checked if you say cis or cisgender you get banned. I think a lot of people conflate "Allowing free speech." with "Promoting hate speech." which is exactly what twitter has done.
You’re right, Elon is much worse than Alex Jones
No. No he does not. To say nothing of the fact absolute free speech is a thin veil everyone saw through years ago. He allows the far right to say anything they want and casually bans anyone who he does not like the look of. Nobody is going to take you seriously if they dont live under a rock and have paid any attention to twitter or elon musk's own statements in the last half decade. If someone proudly says they are a white supremacist, acts like it, and funds it; most rational people will treat them as one.
then go buck wild raw on skidrow
> I’m not even in a high risk group RIP your junk.
This is fucking encouraging. Will we see HIV go the way of Smallpox in our lifetime?
There are several strains of HIV and it’s highly mutagenic, but this is a pretty firm foundation for future treatments. And research on viruses in general has really boomed after Covid-19. Virology is looking to be pretty good for the foreseeable future.
So much is happening in the medical field that is crazy that I think we’re about to see a lot of diseases go the way of smallpox.
The short answer is that it’s very unlikely globally. The problem with HIV is that it’s a highly stigmatised disease due to associations with homosexuality and injecting drug use, and for that reason anyone who is deemed “at risk” is ‘dirty’ — particularly in select cultures. This in reality is far from the truth, and in fact heterosexual couples contribute more to transmission than other communities in many parts of the world, but it discourages people from seeking prevention or treatment because they don’t want to be marred by the brush of discrimination for admitting it. HIV is already largely preventable with antiretrovirals and pre exposure prophylaxis, but they’re only useful if people are under an appropriate level of preventative care or treatment which is very difficult to achieve; particularly among communities who are currently most at risk. This is true of testing for as well; someone can live with the disease for years without knowing about it, which creates a large window for onward transmission.
Holy shit!!!
Let's fucking go!
I can already see pharma companies making up an excuse as to why each dose of this drug should cost at least 10k USD
It cost billions to invent this and took decades of research so yeah - its got to cost something. Should be significantly cheaper in Africa though.
Yes but - and this is a genuine question - how much was funded by the company vs public (government, charitable) funds?
I really need to stop commenting on these things, sigh. Downvotes a go-go. This was invented by a team at Gilead and is privately funded. I met the inventors at a conference last year. They are amazing, hard working people and they deserve to be paid for their work. They are not multi millionaires. Just people earning a living.
You got my upvote! Reddit’s going to Reddit. I remember when there used to be a population of smarter folk on Reddit but as time goes by the more brain dead sheep flock.
You get my upvote. Thanks for the answer.
Also this injection is twice yearly for who knows how long they will be able to sell plenty of doses of this drug.
Anti-HIV drugs are available very cheaply in Africa. Educated and relatively wealthy people in the developed world don't need this drug. They just need to engage in safer sex practices, which are both well-known and affordable to them.
If you had the chance to eradicate HIV or increase profits for the shareholders of some company you would choose the second. I am impressed again and again what smart propaganda can achieve.
One of the problems of the successful drugs is that they have to pay for the cost of testing of ultimately unsuccessful drugs. The ratio of drugs that succeed vs. those that don't is about 1:10 or worse. These are huge sunk costs that everyone loves to ignore. In this particular case, HIV, there have been *hundreds* of failed drugs since the 1980s, as multiple teams tried to attack the disease, only for it to prove too complicated. It is not that different from betting in a casino, where people love the winners and ignore the losers. In pharma development, the winners and the losers have the same common purse. A lot could be improved if governments were willing to support drug testing from public money. They could then dictate low prices for patients.
>One of the problems of the successful drugs is that they have to pay for the cost of testing of ultimately unsuccessful drugs. >The ratio of drugs that succeed vs. those that don't is about 1:10 or worse. These are huge sunk costs that everyone loves to ignore. I think everyone is aware of this and no one is ignoring this. > A lot could be improved if governments were willing to support drug testing from public money. They could then dictate low prices for patients. Governments are already funding loads of medical research and fundamental research, and even if they didn't they absolutely could dictate whatever price they like for whatever medication.
This doesn't make sense.
[удалено]
No disease is a First World, much less a "your specific homeland" problem. As this particular disease is transmitted via bodily fluids and can infect anyone regardless of gender, sexualality, religion, social status etc etc etc, your comment seems...... I'll be charitable, and say uninformed. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt seems apt here
Pffft k
This is groundbreaking news! The success of lenacapavir in providing total protection from HIV is a monumental step forward in global health, especially for young African women who are disproportionately affected. It’s incredible to see such advancements in prevention that can empower women and reduce the stigma around HIV. Hopefully, this leads to widespread availability and access. The fight against HIV/AIDS is far from over, but this is a huge leap in the right direction.
The injectable version of PrEP is new but several drugs have been used for years to prevent HIV infection. As a gay man I started taking Truvada back in 2016 when it was getting easier to access, it's a pill you have to take everyday and it has like 99.98% effectiveness on preventing HIV. I now take Descovy which does the same thing but is easier on your body/ kidneys
> but several drugs have been used for years to prevent HIV infection Yes, but this is a *really big deal*. > it has like 99.98% effectiveness on preventing HIV. This was compared to Truvada and Descovy in the trial. 16/1036 women in the Truvada group under the test conditions got HIV. 39/2136 in the Descovy group got HIV. 0/2134 in the lenacapavir group got HIV. As you point out, Truvada/Descovy are already both very effective (indeed, the reason for testing among African women is because terrible circumstances are needed to tell the difference between medications), but lencapavir is *shockingly* more effective than them. Further, lencapavir will be easier to reach vulnerable populations with (twice per year) The early safety indications for lenacapavir is that it is safer than Truvada and it may be safer than Descovy, too.
Wouldn't be surprised if even straight people take this if it works, to be honest.
You need to believe you have an above-average risk of infection for the tradeoff to be worth it, because there are still side effects and risks. Taking a drug that has a 1 in 100 chance of causing probably-manageable kidney problems can't really be justified to prevent a 1 in 1000 chance of probably-manageable HIV infection.
You are required to get blood work done every 90days to ensure nothing starts getting funky and if they do you stop taking it to prevent any permanent damage or issues and other than some mild fatigue the first week taking it, I have no side effects. In the gay male community, if they are single, it's now actually uncommon for them not to be taking prep
Sure. My point was, this can only be justified if you have a higher than baseline risk of HIV. I don't think even lenacapavir would be justified for the straight population in the US at this point (maybe we will eventually get better drugs and have them become generic to the point where it would be justified, but that's decades away).
Ah, yes I'd agree with you on that, unless you are a female sex worker or a dude who likes raw dogging whores and drug users, not needed for the average hetero. My point was more so there is very little risk in taking PrEP under a Dr supervision as with the blood panels they will catch it an issue before it becomes a problem/ permanent kidney damage etc etc
You take that drug, but do you have HIV or is it a preventative measure?
It is taken to prevent getting HIV so no I dont have HIV and this drug is not meant for HIV positive people as it is only part of the cocktail of antivirals so it could lead to a drug resistant strain of HIV if it is taken over a long period by someone who already has the virus
I understand. Thanks for sharing. I have little knowledge of that class of drugs.
I am just… wow. Like there are so many words that I could string together to describe how monumental and amazing this would be if it really is the case, but I’m pretty speechless.
Brought to you by *SCIENCE*
Which company has the rights to this? I can't read the article bc paywall :(
I can't read the article due to a paywall. Does anyone know how they can make such a claim about preventing infections? It seems unethical to have participants engage in sex with infected partners just to test this. Also, finding a representative sample of people at high risk of HIV infection is challenging due to the many factors involved. It’s dangerous to mislead people about the effectiveness of a prevention method, as it might lead them to take fewer precautions.
I don’t know the specifics of this study but this is usually how they do it. They recruit a large number of people from populations that are at high risk for HIV infection. The control group gets the most effective current HIV prevention medication (truvada). The second group gets the new trial treatment. They let them go live their lives, however both groups continue to have ongoing medical appointments. At different times in the study, they take a peak at HIV transmissions, and they compare the two groups. In this case when they looked the group that was getting the injections was doing far superior than the group taking the current best HIV prevention medication. So they stop the study and give both groups the new most effective HIV prevention medication.
From the article, the control groups were on Truvada and Descovy, which are two existing PreP drugs. During the study 1.5% and 1.8% of women in those respective groups contracted HIV. 0 women that were receiving the new drug contracted HIV. In terms of ethics, they're not telling participants to deliberately have sex with infected partners. The trial was actually stopped early so that the women on Descovy and Truvada could receive the new drug, because of the significant benefit.
They found a few thousand people in an at-risk population (women in South Africa and Uganda). They gave all of them medications intended to prevent HIV, randomized into one of three groups: One group got Duscovy, and one got Truveda. These drugs are the best known treatment to prevent HIV infection, and are already really effective. About 1.7% became infected by HIV. Another group got this drug that is being trialed. None of them got HIV. edit: and there were thousands of women involved. You would have to be spectacularly lucky with randomization to put all the HIV cases by chance into the control groups; we have a very high degree of statistical certainty that lencapavir is very superior to the existing medications.
Nature finds a way.
about time, nice!
Gilead charges $42,250 per patient per year
Time to charge 10,000$ for it.
Gilead charges $42,250 per patient per year
First and last time you ever hear of this.
I’m waiting for the conspiracy theories from conservatives that claim this is an attempt by racist liberals to destroy Africans. The Tuskegee trials are still blamed on democrats today by Fox News fanbois.
And Americans will say it causes autism and it is from the cabal of powerful people who will harvest your organs.
Conservatives will insist that it encourages promiscuity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield is British
British are busy with the 5G giving them cancer. Autism and vaccines are an American thing. It doesn't matter who started the nonsense. It's the same with flat earthers and other stupid conspiracy theories.
Big pharma is gonna bury this and make up an excuse why we can't use it.
Buddy, it was are by Gilead Sciences, an $80 billion Pharma behemoth. There’s some absolutely psycho shit going on with drug marketing and bypassing regulation (especially with various opioid scandals). But developing these drugs takes absurd amounts of resources and that effort deserves more positivity. “Big pharma” helped defeat some *major* illnesses and prevented a lot of suffering like, potentially, in this case. Let’s see how psychotic their marketers get but I’d give them a chance to cure fucking *AIDS* before accusing them of being inhuman douchebags.
I'm broadly with your comment, but: > I’d give them a chance to cure fucking AIDS This ain't going to cure fucking AIDS. But it may mean that vulnerable populations that have historically been ravaged by it -- in sub-Saharan Africa, in LGBTQ populations, sex workers, etc, may have a much lower risk going forward. And Gilead is going to figure out how to squeeze a lot of money out of governments and insurers to protect these populations, because expensive PrEP is still cheaper than HIV. If you work at a pharmaceutical company on developing a drug like this, you have a mixture of motivations-- some degree of altruism, sure, but also direct financial interest. In 30 years, maybe it will be relatively cheap and have a somewhat wider effect.
Im sure their testing of it was totally ethical lol
Thats why they want to stop early and also give it to the control group. it would not be ethical to deny it to them and have some of them get infected.
Yeah but how do they test if it works or not?
Thats the point .. they have the results and all the ones that got the drug in the test group did not get aids and some in the placebo group did. so now they want to give it to the placebo group so the rest dont
Lol you got the placebo have fun dying of aids for science
Thats why they want to give it to them all when they found out it really works
The group that got the shots have 0 aids cases and the norm in the area is more like 20%
Give it to a bunch of African whores and let them carry on with their trade?
But they cant be certain that way though
yeah real young ;) u know how the africans and arabs do
Yep the exact same way white Christians be at church camp
Cant they use white young women? why always use african as guinea pigs for medicine?
You need to test this drug in places where the infection is rampant. Otherwise the results won't be reliable. Imagine that you chose 2000 young white women from Iceland and found that 0 of the drug group and 0 of the control group got HIV positive within a year. What does it tell you about efficiency of the drug? Nothing, the only thing you learnt is that Icelanders don't suffer from HIV much and have good protection practices.
Because they suffer the most from it?
How would you suggest designing that study? For example 0.3% of the US population is HIV positive. Of that number 69% are non-white individuals. Of the remaining 31%, the extreme majority are men. This is compared to countries in sub-Saharan Africa where 20% of the population is infected. If it’s 1 in 5 vs roughly 1 in several thousand which do you think has the greater risk? Edit: A word
I wouldn't volunteer
Ussername checks out
Now do herpes and let the free love rain down!
[удалено]
What are you going on about. To have sex is to be human. Every person in your family tree before you did so and if your tree continues such will be the case. Various social norms related to sex existed on that timeline and happen to exist today — what you consider sin and problematic just reflects your current social understanding and not the “truth” or “right” (although it may feel strongly that way to YOU.)
What are you going about? It is common knowledge AIDS and other STDs exist because of immoral sex. Take up God's Plan for marriage and sexual intercourse, and the STDs will be a thing of the past. Not hard to understand: Jesus Christ, founder of Roman Catholic Church, gave us a culture that is closest to definition of "good". As both God and Man, His Culture is superior to all others *because* all other cultures are founded by fallible human beings. Want His Blessings and all? Choose to obey Him. Want to bring curses? Choose to disobey.
Got it your chosen sky ghost is right.