>There's always the risk of losing previously effective drugs due to resistance, so the value of redundancy cannot be overstated
Redundancy in HIV drugs is extremely important and significantly more resources should be applied to such drugs, as well as to treatment regimens and vaccines that can significantly reduce HIV infection and the horrible effects of AIDS.
In fact, we've made enormous advances over the past 35+ years. My (late) sister's (late) husband was a hemophiliac and, like most American hemophiliacs[0], was infected with HIV because big pharma refused to test the blood products[1] they were selling to hemophiliacs, even though they knew there was a significant risk in doing so.
In any case, my sister took care of her husband for nearly 15 years, until he finally died a slow, painful death in 1996. My sister was also HIV+ and didn't wish to suffer the way her husband had, especially since there was no one to care for her the way she cared for him. And so, over Memorial Day weekend, 1996, my sister took her own life rather than die a slow, painful death.
The irony, of course, was that the first protease inhibitors were approved by the FDA five or six months later. Had she waited, she might well be alive today. And more's the pity.
As such, I strongly believe in research to prevent, treat and cure HIV/AIDS, and heartily agree that we need more good drugs and treatments.
However, the value of anything can be overstated, including redundancy in HIV drugs.
"Without significant redundancy in HIV drugs, all life in the universe will be extinguished."
"Without significant redundancy in HIV drugs, our sun will explode in 2043."
"Without significant redundancy in HIV drugs, the oceans will boil, then evaporate in the next six weeks."
I could go on, but I presume you get the idea.
Hyperbole can be a short-term motivator, but we need to continue over the long term to stop HIV/AIDS. So, please do advocate for more research/drugs/treatments, but please don't use such language in doing so -- it cheapens the argument and potentially reduces the resources available for the efforts you clearly want.
Feel free to disagree, but doing so will give you terminal cancer.[2]
> Hyperbole can be a short-term motivator, but we need to continue over the long term to stop HIV/AIDS.
I am expecting the findings of this trial to be regurgitated by the general population who refer to the science community. “THEY cured AIDS” will be declared without the nuance of “well, new infections are prevented with a biannual depot injection …”
> Redundancy in HIV drugs is extremely important and significantly more resources should be applied to such drugs
Does HIV prevention research get more resources than curing cancer? I'm looking through the NIH website and asking Claude and so far the evidence I've seen is leading me to believe that's true, but I could be mistaken.
>Does HIV prevention research get more resources than curing cancer? I'm looking through the NIH website and asking Claude and so far the evidence I've seen is leading me to believe that's true, but I could be mistaken.
I don't know. Does it matter? If you think it does, why?
Note that I wasn't advocating for resources to be taken away from research on treatment/cures for other diseases.
That said, more resources should be applied to curing cancers and other deadly diseases as well.
Redundancy in HIV drugs is extremely important and significantly more resources should be applied to such drugs, as well as to treatment regimens and vaccines that can significantly reduce HIV infection and the horrible effects of AIDS.
In fact, we've made enormous advances over the past 35+ years. My (late) sister's (late) husband was a hemophiliac and, like most American hemophiliacs[0], was infected with HIV because big pharma refused to test the blood products[1] they were selling to hemophiliacs, even though they knew there was a significant risk in doing so.
In any case, my sister took care of her husband for nearly 15 years, until he finally died a slow, painful death in 1996. My sister was also HIV+ and didn't wish to suffer the way her husband had, especially since there was no one to care for her the way she cared for him. And so, over Memorial Day weekend, 1996, my sister took her own life rather than die a slow, painful death.
The irony, of course, was that the first protease inhibitors were approved by the FDA five or six months later. Had she waited, she might well be alive today. And more's the pity.
As such, I strongly believe in research to prevent, treat and cure HIV/AIDS, and heartily agree that we need more good drugs and treatments.
However, the value of anything can be overstated, including redundancy in HIV drugs.
"Without significant redundancy in HIV drugs, all life in the universe will be extinguished."
"Without significant redundancy in HIV drugs, our sun will explode in 2043."
"Without significant redundancy in HIV drugs, the oceans will boil, then evaporate in the next six weeks."
I could go on, but I presume you get the idea.
Hyperbole can be a short-term motivator, but we need to continue over the long term to stop HIV/AIDS. So, please do advocate for more research/drugs/treatments, but please don't use such language in doing so -- it cheapens the argument and potentially reduces the resources available for the efforts you clearly want.
Feel free to disagree, but doing so will give you terminal cancer.[2]
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917149/
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bayer-says-it-settled-decades-o...
[2] See what I did there?