One Cheap Pill Protects Healthy People from HIV

FLUFFYONE say's I am new to the site but already have found many subjects which touch me. This one is no different. The 73% is a good number however I must agree with some. The fact that it is possible in which some cases may be rape envoke anger in me. There are many sides to a coin, have we observed all. The thought of a 25cent pill has me in doubt. Let us not forget that somewhere there is someone to profit from this, and the price is too small and the outcome to shadey for my taste THANK YOU

reply to post by 2manyquestions


So it's a prevention, not a total protection. But I have a fool proof protection. It's called not sleeping around, not cheating.

Originally posted by soaringhawk
reply to post by 2manyquestions

 

So it's a prevention, not a total protection. But I have a fool proof protection. It's called not sleeping around, not cheating.

edit on 13-7-2011 by soaringhawk because: (no reason given)

Yes, it's prevention, not protection. Although I agree with you, it's not always fool proof. There's always the possibility that your monogamous partner has cheated on you, contracted HIV, and did it without you ever finding out.

However the pill will be most beneficial for those living in Africa, where HIV is an epidemic spread through both consenting couples and frequent rapes. It's been a problem over there for many years, so this will help slow down the infection rate.

Originally posted by FLUFFYONE
FLUFFYONE say's I am new to the site but already have found many subjects which touch me. This one is no different. The 73% is a good number however I must agree with some. The fact that it is possible in which some cases may be rape envoke anger in me. There are many sides to a coin, have we observed all. The thought of a 25cent pill has me in doubt. Let us not forget that somewhere there is someone to profit from this, and the price is too small and the outcome to shadey for my taste THANK YOU

Welcome to ATS, and thanks for posting. 73% is definitely a good number. It really is maddening that women and children have to fear the possibility of not only rape, but of contracting HIV as a result. It is absolutely hideous.
I don't know why the pill only costs 25 cents a day. Maybe it cost that much to produce, or less. More info is needed as far as what's in the drug, how it will be marketed and to whom.

Originally posted by Alena Michelle
You replyed to me but quoted Adyta. Your bad...oops

No. I replied to you.
Then I replied to Adyta.
All in the same post too.
I am sorry that was so confusing for you.

This is why there was a reply to you, some text.
Then there was a quote from Adyta, then some text. Each reply went with the person cited above it. Your bad.

There's another pill to keep us heallthy and from beng a burden on the medical profession, and its cheap as well. it's a cyanide capsule, you'll never get ill again after taking it.

reply to post by Adyta


Actually I agree, though the tone of the reply was a little over the top, it would be beneficial to people living in areas where rape and abuse are common. It might save the users life if they are raped by an infected person.

Lots of sex crime in africa.. constantly.

www.nytimes.com...

And i'm sure that cost is the production cost/cost to governments buying the pills to disperse.

Good news to hear, but I wonder how accessible this would be to people living in HIV/AIDS-stricken areas such as Africa and places where rape/sex crimes are prevalent.

Originally posted by beauty from pain
Good news to hear, but I wonder how accessible this would be to people living in HIV/AIDS-stricken areas such as Africa and places where rape/sex crimes are prevalent.

The study was done in Africa, and the medicine is mostly meant to help out in those areas, to prevent the spread of HIV through rape or sleeping with an infected partner. So, it will definitely benefit them over there most.

The real benefit would be education, not helping their out of control sex and reproducing. The African countries affected need education. Otherwise it will just continue on. In this day and age I just see no reason that sex education should not be offered to everyone unless they reject it. It's not just men raping women or children, but women have raped men too.

So after using all these people as guinea pigs for free, they develop a pill for only 25¢ a day. Glad children are going to be able to afford $91.25/year. Guess this is good for us humans, at least the pharmaceutical companies aren't even charging the non-generic pill prices this time around.

Can't wait to see the warning label for this. 73% chance of stopping transmission of HIV/AIDS virus. May cause intestinal bleeding, thoughts of depression, skin lesions, arterial blockages, shortness of breath, lungs to fill up with liquid.

reply to post by saabster5


yup i have to agree

Drugs for everyone

At this week's conference, delegates from UNAIDS, the World Health Organization and CDC will also debate possible changes to the WHO's current guidance on who should be offered antiretroviral drugs.

to the "aids is gods punishment fer fags and promiscooty" crowd yes we've heard that nonsense before

and don't care to listen

here's a sample of the "educational efforts" you are no doubt promoting along with "witch" burnings warning kinda nasty:
www.youtube.com...

africa is the continent with the greatest human genetic variability, thus a fertile breeding ground for a world wide pandemic caused by some sudden mutation.

Good news.

The truth is, people are not going to stop having sex. So it's better to reduce the risk of getting HIV by 73% rather than 0%. Look, if you played the stock market and made money 73% of the time, you would make a lot of money.

So, this is much better in the long run and you should see a drop in new HIV cases because of this drug. Sex and food are two things humans will always partake of no matter what the risk may be. We need food to survive and most people act like they can't survive without sex. So 73% is pretty good.

So were they infecting healthy people with the virus? This is my first post sorry if I sound stupid, I should probably research this on my own more before I post, thanks and sorry if im not doin this right

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Adyta

 

Actually I agree, though the tone of the reply was a little over the top, it would be beneficial to people living in areas where rape and abuse are common. It might save the users life if they are raped by an infected person.

Lots of sex crime in africa.. constantly.

www.nytimes.com...

And i'm sure that cost is the production cost/cost to governments buying the pills to disperse.

edit on 14-7-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

I have to ask.
If "usually" is over the top.
What is "common?"

Originally posted by joeyg402
So were they infecting healthy people with the virus? This is my first post sorry if I sound stupid, I should probably research this on my own more before I post, thanks and sorry if im not doin this right

According to the study, the drugs were administered to people who were not yet infected with HIV, but had HIV positive partners. Due to the fact that certain African countries have extreme issues with high HIV infection rate and a high number of sex crimes, the people who administered the drugs figured it would help decrease the spread of HIV. The researchers did not infect anyone with HIV, they simply let the people live their lives the way they would have lived them even without the medicine, and they measured the results. I hope that answers your question.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Good news.

The truth is, people are not going to stop having sex. So it's better to reduce the risk of getting HIV by 73% rather than 0%. Look, if you played the stock market and made money 73% of the time, you would make a lot of money.

So, this is much better in the long run and you should see a drop in new HIV cases because of this drug. Sex and food are two things humans will always partake of no matter what the risk may be. We need food to survive and most people act like they can't survive without sex. So 73% is pretty good.

Exactly. That is what I'm thinking as well. For some people 73% doesn't seem like enough, but one has to realize that 73% protection versus 0% protection is obviously a good thing. Slowing down the infection rate is very important. One day they may be able to raise that 73% to 99% or even 100%, but for now we shouldn't scoff at progress. It's a great achievement.

Originally posted by soaringhawk
The real benefit would be education, not helping their out of control sex and reproducing. The African countries affected need education. Otherwise it will just continue on. In this day and age I just see no reason that sex education should not be offered to everyone unless they reject it. It's not just men raping women or children, but women have raped men too.

edit on 14-7-2011 by soaringhawk because: (no reason given)

Education is important, but it will never be as effective in a chaotic environment as it is in a controlled environment. Many African countries are not stable enough for education to take full hold. It will take a lot of effort to stabilize some of these countries, and only when people don't have to fear hunger, violence, disease or oppression will education start to matter more. I can't even imagine where I would begin to bring that about. One little tiny step at a time, I suppose.

Originally posted by saabster5
So after using all these people as guinea pigs for free, they develop a pill for only 25¢ a day. Glad children are going to be able to afford $91.25/year. Guess this is good for us humans, at least the pharmaceutical companies aren't even charging the non-generic pill prices this time around.

Can't wait to see the warning label for this. 73% chance of stopping transmission of HIV/AIDS virus. May cause intestinal bleeding, thoughts of depression, skin lesions, arterial blockages, shortness of breath, lungs to fill up with liquid.

As they say, everything comes with a price. The ethics of this study are highly questionable, and many questions remain. If there are any side-effects, people will have to make a choice and determine whether it's something they are willing to risk.