Pills Prevent HIV in Straight Men and Women

  • ZacktheMan

    Posts: 340

    Jul 13, 2011 4:39 PM GMT
    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/07/13/pills-prevent-hiv-in-straight-men-and-women/?test=latestnews

    Two new studies found that daily pills prevented infection with the AIDS virus in heterosexual men and women in Africa, bringing new hope for someday offering a medical shield against HIV infection.

    "This is good news. This is a good day for HIV prevention," said Dr. Lynn Paxton of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who has coordinated the agency's research into HIV prevention.


    Zack: If it works for heterosexuals, it ought to work for gays, since there is no physical differences.


  • Muscmasmat

    Posts: 124

    Jul 13, 2011 8:00 PM GMT
    Note that the study indicates that Truvada was NOT EVEN CLOSE# to 100% effective in PREVENTION, but did provide SOME protection. Also, along with the medicine, people were educated in safe sex practices.

    And the cost would be approaching $10,000 per year.

    So this is really not that great of a breakthrough. Nor should it be taken as a way for people to have unsafe sex. Using condoms is still the best and most reliable way to prevent HIV transmission.
  • Vaughn

    Posts: 1880

    Jul 13, 2011 8:20 PM GMT
    I didn't read it because it was from Fox, but why do they make a point to distinguish heterosexual?
  • Latenight30

    Posts: 1525

    Jul 13, 2011 8:23 PM GMT
    Vaughn saidI didn't read it because it was from Fox, but why do they make a point to distinguish heterosexual?


    Cause if you got a group of us together, we'd not stay clothed long enough to take the dang pills.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2011 8:29 PM GMT
    Latenight30 said
    Vaughn saidI didn't read it because it was from Fox, but why do they make a point to distinguish heterosexual?


    Cause if you got a group of us together, we'd not stay clothed long enough to take the dang pills.


    when do any of us stay clothed long enough to do anything?!?!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2011 8:56 PM GMT
    Here's the non-Fox version:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14142224

    I have a few ethical issues with the studies - like if you knew one partner was +ve wouldn't you be giving them free condoms rather than experimenting with drugs???
  • Vaughn

    Posts: 1880

    Jul 13, 2011 8:58 PM GMT
    Bucky159 said
    Latenight30 said
    Vaughn saidI didn't read it because it was from Fox, but why do they make a point to distinguish heterosexual?


    Cause if you got a group of us together, we'd not stay clothed long enough to take the dang pills.


    when do any of us stay clothed long enough to do anything?!?!


    You mean straight people don't sleep naked too?
  • Vaughn

    Posts: 1880

    Jul 13, 2011 9:04 PM GMT
    Rundown saidHere's the non-Fox version:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14142224

    I have a few ethical issues with the studies - like if you knew one partner was +ve wouldn't you be giving them free condoms rather than experimenting with drugs???


    That is a serious breach of Ethics. University of Washington? Research is supposed to be regulated. My friend who just graduated is in the "Ethics Police" now. I'll ask him about it.

  • Jul 13, 2011 9:13 PM GMT
    Vaughn said
    Rundown saidHere's the non-Fox version:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14142224

    I have a few ethical issues with the studies - like if you knew one partner was +ve wouldn't you be giving them free condoms rather than experimenting with drugs???


    That is a serious breach of Ethics. University of Washington? Research is supposed to be regulated. My friend who just graduated is in the "Ethics Police" now. I'll ask him about it.


    There is a fine line of ethics that is being walked in this case. Yes, the people doing the experiments are not providing care to everyone involved. However, unless they are preventing them from getting treatment/prevention, I don't believe there is a breath in ethics.

    The article even states : "In both studies, participants also were offered counseling and free condoms, which may help explain the relatively low overall infection rate."

    This is far from another case of Tuskegee, and I don't feel that the researchers were making a breach in ethics.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2011 9:24 PM GMT
    livin_the_life said
    Vaughn said
    Rundown saidHere's the non-Fox version:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14142224

    I have a few ethical issues with the studies - like if you knew one partner was +ve wouldn't you be giving them free condoms rather than experimenting with drugs???


    That is a serious breach of Ethics. University of Washington? Research is supposed to be regulated. My friend who just graduated is in the "Ethics Police" now. I'll ask him about it.


    There is a fine line of ethics that is being walked in this case. Yes, the people doing the experiments are not providing care to everyone involved. However, unless they are preventing them from getting treatment/prevention, I don't believe there is a breath in ethics.

    The article even states : "In both studies, participants also were offered counseling and free condoms, which may help explain the relatively low overall infection rate."

    This is far from another case of Tuskegee, and I don't feel that the researchers were making a breach in ethics.



    Good point, but now makes me question the validity of the study - it is very conceivable that adhering to condom use and adhering to the medicine regimen may be strongly correlated. I wonder if they controlled for this in the analysis?