this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
415 points (99.3% liked)

World News

39096 readers
2706 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Twice-yearly shots used to treat AIDS were 100% effective in preventing new infections in women, according to study results published Wednesday.

There were no infections in the young women and girls that got the shots in a study of about 5,000 in South Africa and Uganda, researchers reported. In a group given daily prevention pills, roughly 2% ended up catching HIV from infected sex partners.

“To see this level of protection is stunning,” said Salim Abdool Karim of the injections. He is director of an AIDS research center in Durban, South Africa, who was not part of the research.

The results in women were published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine and discussed at an AIDS conference in Munich. Gilead paid for the study and some of the researchers are company employees. Because of the surprisingly encouraging results, the study was stopped early and all participants were offered the shots, also known as lenacapavir.

all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lostinasea@lemmy.world 92 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Amazing. Hopefully this leads to eradicating HIV for good.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 46 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Have you seen gestures broadly?

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 44 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I'm getting jaded as I get older. The optimist in me recognizes how ground breaking this is, and thinks there's a real possibility of actually eradicating AIDS. The pessimist in me remembers covid.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago

if PrEP had been invented 25 years ago it would be banned

we've come a long way

[–] lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 1 points 4 months ago

Haha, nicely put

[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

If there's profit to be made treating HIV/AIDS symptoms without curing, the profit motive health industry won't like this. Solve the problem, their profits go away.

[–] JPAKx4@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean why do we eradicate any diseases if there is profit involved?

[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

We can speculate very easily.

There's a trade-off, cost-benefit analysys. If a disease is so catastrophic that it kills everyone fast, well you're not gonna make profit off them ever, because they die. Cure this one.

What about diseases that can be controlled somewhat, and only affect small amounts of the population? What if for them to stay alive they have to stay on a regular concoction of expensive pharmaceuticals either forever or for a long time? And they can still go to work? Why cure this, out of altruism? That's not how capitalism works.

Let's just say, for shits and giggles, we could cure immediately the common cold and mild influenza, forever. No more cough and cold over the counter medicine needed, much less pain and fever reducers. Local pharmacies don't need to stock this stuff anymore. The companies that produce and sell these are all tied to wallstreet. Getting colds doesn't stop you from working (or buying/consuming). Shit, I work with "men" who are "tough" who never call out of work sick because "I'm not a pussy" (cultural hardwork ethic propaganda nonsense).

Etc., etc. You get my point.

[–] thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you're not saying this is a good thing. Just that it is a thing.

Makes sense to me. But I concede that I'm ignorant of what diseases we have cured recently, and too tired to research it right now.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago

Yellow fever, cholera, mumps, polio, measles, and malaria were endemic in the US prior to their eradication. By "endemic" I mean children got them as often as chicken pox. They were almost unavoidable and killed millions.

Measles and mumps are making a comeback due to anti-vax losers, but the others are still gone.

[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

The downvotes are meh, I've made similar comments that got more upvoted. Lemmy is a fickle beast and probably depends on the crowd at the time and their mood or the article or whatever.

You're correct, I was not saying this is good by any means. I want the profit motive removed from everything healthcare related. I was just giving an exaggerated simple example of how the capitalist profit motive could (and arguably does) work in some instances.

[–] user134450 -1 points 4 months ago

expensive pharmaceuticals

antiretroviral meds are getting very cheap though, so not sure if that is really a valid point anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_HIV_treatment

[–] sznowicki@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Then some other company will do it. Not all world is US and A. Is some areas like Europe the states would be more than happy to order those vaccines to treat their citizens. There’s demand made by public health organizations, there will be someone willing to join the race and eat that cake.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Please make this affordable in the U.S.

I have a feeling it won't be.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago (1 children)

But then people might have sex without fear! That's bound to make baby Jesus cry!

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 4 months ago

40k per dose

[–] Late2TheParty@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago
[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Republicans will work tirelessly to ban this in the U.S.

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io -2 points 4 months ago (6 children)

twice-yearly

I wonder why they went with that, instead of saying bi-annually

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 49 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Is biannual twice yearly or every two years?

If you look it up, it’s both. IMO all these words are useless. Biweekly, bimonthly, etc.

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Instead of biweekly I specify fortnightly. Is there a bimonthly equivalent? Fortweekly?

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We should make it a thing. Let's regroup in a fortweek and see how we're getting on.

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

It's a date.

[–] Kanzar@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you use the word fortnight, it's likely you aren't from North America.

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

I am American, but I won't use biweekly because it is ambiguous.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

I think it's trended to mean every 2. The original commentator wants chaos.

[–] hamFoilHat@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

Bi-annually has the problem that it can mean twice a year or every two years.

[–] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Yes. A bicycle has two wheels, a semicircle is half a circle. Biannual is two years, semiannual is half a year.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

English isn't prescriptive, if enough people use it the wrong way then it becomes the right way.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

Tell that to the prescriptivists.

[–] Mereo@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 months ago

It is clearer. What I learned at work is to write documents in high school language so that everyone can understand them.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

They could have gone with "every six months" too. I think any of them work, although as other say biannually can mean every two years as well, leading to confusion.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Bi has trended to mean every 2 weeks/months/years/etc.