A twice-yearly shot could help end AIDS. But will it get to everyone who needs it?

There is no way this could have been properly controlled and tested - you could never get ethical approval to do a properly controlled trial on this. It's just about making money.

"A twice-yearly shot could help end AIDS." The word "could" in the headline tells you everything you need to know.

There is no way this could have been properly controlled and tested - you could never get ethical approval to do a properly controlled trial on this. It's just about making money.

And yet they did, easily. And no ethics review committee has even hinted at the study being in any way inappropriate.

"A twice-yearly shot could help end AIDS." The word "could" in the headline tells you everything you need to know.

Not really, the body of the article does an excellent job explaining that this is conditional to the treatment being available for everybody in developing countries. "Could" not as a vague expression of possible efficacy but instead recognizing that the desired effect depends on cooperation and putting lives as a bigger priority than profit.

The twice-yearly shot was 100% effective in preventing HIV infections in a study of women, and results published last week show it worked nearly as well in men.

This is really amazing

Drugmaker Gilead said it will allow cheap, generic versions to be sold in 120 poor countries with high HIV rates —

Even more amazing

While there are other ways to guard against infection, like condoms, daily pills, vaginal rings...

While countries including Norway, France, Spain and the U.S. have paid more than $40,000 per year for Sunlenca

If it was up to me to either pay over $40,000 per year or use a condom, I'd choose the latter.

Plus, I really don't trust Gilead, probably just as bad as Pfizer...

If it was up to me to either pay over $40,000 per year or use a condom, I'd choose the latter.

Which of course does nothing to solve the very serious global problem with HIV, this is what the experts are fighting against, not one person personal preferences but measures that are effective at population level.

Plus, I really don't trust Gilead, probably just as bad as Pfizer...

Fortunately personal preferences about who anybody trusts are not relevant to safe and effective medical interventions being developed and millions of patients being benefited from it.

Plus, I really don't trust Gilead, probably just as bad as Pfizer...

Fortunately personal preferences about who anybody trusts are not relevant to safe and effective medical interventions being developed and millions of patients being benefited from it.

Yeah, it's my personal preference based on their long history of corruption.

Their studies used to demonstrate safety and effectiveness should be taken with a grain of salt.

Yeah, it's my personal preference based on their long history of corruption.

If that were the basis you would have the same opinion about several of the sources you bring, and once again if a company delivers safe and effective medical interventions then that triumphs personal preferences every single time.

Their studies used to demonstrate safety and effectiveness should be taken with a grain of salt.

At least they are much more consistent with the rest of the scientific literature and are infinitely less likely to be retracted than some of the references people have tried to use here.

If it was up to me to either pay over $40,000 per year or use a condom, I'd choose the latter.

Not all HIV/AIDS are spread sexually. Sometimes blood transfusions and needle drug addictions.

If it was up to me to either pay over $40,000 per year or use a condom, I'd choose the latter.

Not all HIV/AIDS are spread sexually. Sometimes blood transfusions and needle drug addictions.

OK, so if it was up to me to either pay over $40,000 per year or choose to not reuse needles, I'd choose the latter.

Yeah, it's my personal preference based on their long history of corruption.

If that were the basis you would have the same opinion about several of the sources you bring,

There is a difference between actual convictions resulting in heavy fines and a scientist/doctor being criticized by pharma-funded "fact-checkers".

and once again if a company delivers safe and effective medical interventions then that triumphs personal preferences every single time.

Yeah, if the actually deliver safe and effective medical interventions...

OK, so if it was up to me to either pay over $40,000 per year or choose to not reuse needles, I'd choose the latter.

You do not understand drug addictions.

OK, so if it was up to me to either pay over $40,000 per year or choose to not reuse needles, I'd choose the latter

And this still does nothing to solve the global problem, meanwhile companies developing and testing antiviral medications actually help controlling the infection and could save millions of lives.

There is a difference between actual convictions resulting in heavy fines and a scientist/doctor being criticized by pharma-funded "fact-checkers".

When the doctor actively spread disinformation then the criticism is actually the positive part, specially when the doctor keeps causing deaths because of that disinformation even after he is informed of how wrong he is.

Yeah, if the actually deliver safe and effective medical interventions...

When you are unable to refute any of the studies that prove so then the only valid conclusion is that yes, they do.