How come Magic Johnson is still alive? MILLIONS died of HIV/AIDS during the 80s & 90s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those are global numbers. If you’re using that as a baseline, you may as well ask how Magic Johnson survived malaria.

Exactly, comparing a wealthy athlete in a develoepd nation with full access to top level health care to a global number is apples to oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a really informative podcast about a preventative HIV drug that costs $20K annually. I listened to this a while ago, but as I recall the pharmaceutical company, Gilead, donated the drugs during clinical trials and then hiked up the price while still under patent protection. The protection is ending and they have developed a replacement drug that might go the same route (free during clinical trials).

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/podcasts/the-daily/hiv-aids-truvada-prep.html

They are advertising Truvada like crazy, at least on the shows I watch. And aren’t all drugs free during clinical trials?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always find it interesting that a cure for HIV was found so quickly. It started as a men's health issue. Yet, women are being forced to travel of hundreds of miles for legal abortions and absolutely horrible treatments for breast cancers and pediatric cancers. It's a man's world.

What is this cure that you speak of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always find it interesting that a cure for HIV was found so quickly. It started as a men's health issue. Yet, women are being forced to travel of hundreds of miles for legal abortions and absolutely horrible treatments for breast cancers and pediatric cancers. It's a man's world.

What is this cure that you speak of?

And you think about 15 years from the first reported cases until effective drug treatments were developed is quick? This wasn’t a man/woman issue. It was a gay/straight issue. Those in charge in the early 80’s hated gay people and didn’t really care that they were sick and dying.

[Anonymous]

Clearly, the drugs that were developed to treat HIV infections have saved millions of lives and have made HIV no longer a "death sentence." However, I have a family member who received the most advanced treatments (including several clinical trials), were faithful about taking their medicine on a strict schedule, and still died a horrible death. The drugs have huge side effects, and do not work for everyone. I am very happy for those who have been able to lead a mostly normal life after diagnosis, but I find it very upsetting when people act a though a HIV diagnosis is not a life-altering event (which I see all the time). I sometimes think the whole "eradicate the stigma" campaign has gone too far the other way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always find it interesting that a cure for HIV was found so quickly. It started as a men's health issue. Yet, women are being forced to travel of hundreds of miles for legal abortions and absolutely horrible treatments for breast cancers and pediatric cancers. It's a man's world.

What is this cure that you speak of?

And you think about 15 years from the first reported cases until effective drug treatments were developed is quick? This wasn’t a man/woman issue. It was a gay/straight issue. Those in charge in the early 80’s hated gay people and didn’t really care that they were sick and dying.

This isn't true. If you read "And the Band Played On," which isn't friendly to President Reagan, you'd know that the truth is a lot more complicated. Larry Kramer and others made it a mission to blame Reagan, but there were many "facts" that are reported that just aren't true. Doctors started seeing the patients with the symptoms of AIDS in 1979-80 in LA and NY, but the pattern was not identified as a separate syndrome and widely reported and named "AIDS" until 1982. The HIV virus was discovered at the National Cancer Institute (a federally-funded entity) in 1983 (& also at about the same time in France).

"The administration increased AIDS funding requests from $8 million in 1982 to $26.5 million in 1983, which Congress bumped to $44 million, a number that doubled every year thereafter during Reagan’s presidency."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/01/ronald_reagan_and_aids_correcting_the_record_122806.html

Those of us who were politically aware at the time remember how confusing the epidemic was when it was first reported. Early on, the gay community itself was not cooperative with efforts to control transmission, as they didn't want to stigmatize gay sex. The famous example was the resistance to closing the bath houses in San Francisco.

It was a sad and scary time, but a lot of what is reported as "fact" now is just 20/20 hindsight.

[Anonymous]

WAtch "How to Survive A Plague"
https://surviveaplague.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always find it interesting that a cure for HIV was found so quickly. It started as a men's health issue. Yet, women are being forced to travel of hundreds of miles for legal abortions and absolutely horrible treatments for breast cancers and pediatric cancers. It's a man's world.

What is this cure that you speak of?

And you think about 15 years from the first reported cases until effective drug treatments were developed is quick? This wasn’t a man/woman issue. It was a gay/straight issue. Those in charge in the early 80’s hated gay people and didn’t really care that they were sick and dying.

This isn't true. If you read "And the Band Played On," which isn't friendly to President Reagan, you'd know that the truth is a lot more complicated. Larry Kramer and others made it a mission to blame Reagan, but there were many "facts" that are reported that just aren't true. Doctors started seeing the patients with the symptoms of AIDS in 1979-80 in LA and NY, but the pattern was not identified as a separate syndrome and widely reported and named "AIDS" until 1982. The HIV virus was discovered at the National Cancer Institute (a federally-funded entity) in 1983 (& also at about the same time in France).

"The administration increased AIDS funding requests from $8 million in 1982 to $26.5 million in 1983, which Congress bumped to $44 million, a number that doubled every year thereafter during Reagan’s presidency."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/01/ronald_reagan_and_aids_correcting_the_record_122806.html

Those of us who were politically aware at the time remember how confusing the epidemic was when it was first reported. Early on, the gay community itself was not cooperative with efforts to control transmission, as they didn't want to stigmatize gay sex. The famous example was the resistance to closing the bath houses in San Francisco.

It was a sad and scary time, but a lot of what is reported as "fact" now is just 20/20 hindsight.

Reagan didn't mention the word AIDS until his second term........

[Anonymous]

Just wanting to reiterate that there is no cure, only treatment. Some strains of HIV are more virulent and result in a much more rapid onset of AIDS (eg Philippe Padieu). Some are less virulent and with antiretroviral treatment keep patients at a healthier state at length.

Again, this is not to be confused with a cure and not to be confused as not being infectious. Huge spectrum: Some patients also have a genetic mutation that results in HIV resistance while some patients have comorbidities that result in infections causing death. Some people have health insurance or are in a developed country with access to care and some are not. Patients in developing countries are still not doing well with regard to education and access to care. The least surprising patients who are doing well are those with celebrity, $ and access to education/care.