• @Nurse_Robot
    link
    English
    283 months ago

    Damn, phase 3 double blind randomized study showing 100% effective? That’s huge

  • partial_accumen
    link
    English
    123 months ago

    “lenacapavir, a twice-yearly shot developed by Gilead Sciences for the prevention of HIV.”

    So its not a vaccine, but it would still be incredibly helpful in reducing the spread of of HIV.

      • partial_accumen
        link
        English
        18
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Just don’t fuck like a monkey and you will be safe

        You can keep your slut shaming to yourself.

        Among other things your advice isn’t an option for victims of rape, and in some parts of the world HIV is as widespread as rape.

      • Flying SquidM
        link
        English
        83 months ago

        Cool. I don’t want anyone to get HIV whether they “fuck like a monkey” or not. Why do you?

      • Badabinski
        link
        fedilink
        73 months ago

        Isn’t less disease better than more? I won’t argue with you about sex or other things that people have hangups about, but HIV is also transmissible through blood. There are people who got HIV and developed AIDS for reasons that are innocent in any reasonable context. If you’re a first responder or good Samaritan, doctor, nurse, or find yourself in some other context where it’s possible for uncontrolled mingling of blood, you’re at risk of contracting HIV. If particularly vulnerable people can be completely protected, then everyone’s odds will improve.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -1
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Humans are apes which are monkeys which are primates. Taxonomically speaking of course. In common parlance they can be considered distinct, but this isn’t scientifically accurate.

            Your statement is like saying both iPhones and smart phones are phones. It’s technically true but it contains a logical error in you are implying a comparable status between one category and another category that contains the first.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13 months ago

      Historically, the answer on this has involved charging very different amounts in different countries. This both enables some level of access by the poor and maximizes profits.