5 ms·

HIV must be the most almost cured disease ever.

vkou 9y ago
In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence. In the 2010s, getting HIV means that you are likely to live until... Your 70s. (Assuming you have access to medication.) The problem is that you need to take expensive medication for the rest of your life. And that you can infect other people.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  > In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence. It has never been quick. > Without treatment, average survival time after infection with HIV is estimated to be 9 to 11 years, depending on the HIV subtype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Prognosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Prognosis You may be thinking of the ~1 year survival times after an AIDS diagnosis, but HIV is usually latent for a decade after initial infection.
  - mfoy_ 9y ago
    The passing of the sentence was quick, the execution of it was painful and slow.
    - fatjokes 9y ago
      So exactly like an American death sentence.
  - loeg 9y ago
    In the 80s HIV wasn't really diagnosed until it had reached the AIDS level, was it? AIDS itself was first diagnosed in 1981 and HIV wasn't isolated until 1983 and didn't have that name until 1986. I've tried to do a brief search for earliest HIV (non-AIDS) diagnosis, but many websites use AIDS and HIV interchangeably.
    - jessriedel 9y ago
      Sure, but vkou didn't say "being diagnosed with AIDS was a quick death sentence" Importantly, you could be practicing very unsafe sex for a decade with no apparent consequences, which is not what one would conclude from vkou's comment.
    - rangibaby 9y ago
      "And The Band Played On" might have something about it. I don't remember because I read it a lot time ago.
  - stan_rogers 9y ago
    To be fair, "getting HIV" wasn't really a thing in the dark days. You found out when you developed AIDS, because some weird opportunistic thing popped up. Pre-AIDS diagnosis came along after an awful lot of people died slowly of things that folks ordinarily don't get or don't die from.
- spklin 9y ago
  Successful treatment means you cannot infect others: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-hiv-transmission/people-on-treatment-with-suppressed-hiv-levels-cant-transmit-virus-hiv-aids-group-idUSKBN16G03N https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-hiv-transmission/p... This is why "treatment as prevention" is important part of stopping further spread.
- otakucode 9y ago
  The infecting other people is mostly theoretical. As far as I know there is no actual instance of transmission from a person with an undetectable viral load on antiretroviral drugs to an uninfected person.
  - yeukhon 9y ago
    > an undetectable viral load on antiretroviral drugs to an uninfected person Can you please put this into simpler terms? I am pretty confused. Because HIV transmission is not a theoretical and is not a myth. My understanding is, OP meant to say "transmission of HIV via known risky activities." --EDIT-- Thank you for those clarifying. Often the unfamiliar technical terms can throw me off.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      They are responding to The problem is that you need to take expensive medication for the rest of your life. And that you can infect other people. They are saying that there are no recorded instances of someone that is taking antiretroviral drugs and has an undetectable viral load actually transmitting the virus.
    - kentosi 9y ago
      If you're getting treatment, the amount of HIV in your blood is regularly measured as your "viral load". It's possible, with treatment, for people with HIV to have a viral load labelled undetectable. To date, from an article I read, there have been no recorded transmissions from people with an undetectable viral load. https://www.preventionaccess.org/faq https://www.preventionaccess.org/faq
      - vkou 9y ago
        Two questions arise: How many people taking retrovirals have undetectable levels of HIV? Are those people using condoms?
        tatterdemalion 9y ago
- Cozumel 9y ago
  He means there's been tons of cures for it already, just from memory the African prostitutes that are immune to HIV (except now they all got infected, and the story was buried), the nanoparticles carrying melittin that could destroy HIV, the fact that horses are naturally immune etc etc after the initial media cycle it all gets buried, this will go the same way. HIV/AIDS is a multi-billion dollar business, no-one seriously wants to cure it.

vkou 9y ago

In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence. In the 2010s, getting HIV means that you are likely to live until... Your 70s. (Assuming you have access to medication.) The problem is that you need to take expensive medication for the rest of your life. And that you can infect other people.

jessriedel 9y ago
> In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence. It has never been quick. > Without treatment, average survival time after infection with HIV is estimated to be 9 to 11 years, depending on the HIV subtype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Prognosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Prognosis You may be thinking of the ~1 year survival times after an AIDS diagnosis, but HIV is usually latent for a decade after initial infection.
- mfoy_ 9y ago
  The passing of the sentence was quick, the execution of it was painful and slow.
  - fatjokes 9y ago
    So exactly like an American death sentence.
- loeg 9y ago
  In the 80s HIV wasn't really diagnosed until it had reached the AIDS level, was it? AIDS itself was first diagnosed in 1981 and HIV wasn't isolated until 1983 and didn't have that name until 1986. I've tried to do a brief search for earliest HIV (non-AIDS) diagnosis, but many websites use AIDS and HIV interchangeably.
  - jessriedel 9y ago
    Sure, but vkou didn't say "being diagnosed with AIDS was a quick death sentence" Importantly, you could be practicing very unsafe sex for a decade with no apparent consequences, which is not what one would conclude from vkou's comment.
  - rangibaby 9y ago
    "And The Band Played On" might have something about it. I don't remember because I read it a lot time ago.
- stan_rogers 9y ago
  To be fair, "getting HIV" wasn't really a thing in the dark days. You found out when you developed AIDS, because some weird opportunistic thing popped up. Pre-AIDS diagnosis came along after an awful lot of people died slowly of things that folks ordinarily don't get or don't die from.
spklin 9y ago
Successful treatment means you cannot infect others: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-hiv-transmission/people-on-treatment-with-suppressed-hiv-levels-cant-transmit-virus-hiv-aids-group-idUSKBN16G03N https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-hiv-transmission/p... This is why "treatment as prevention" is important part of stopping further spread.
otakucode 9y ago
The infecting other people is mostly theoretical. As far as I know there is no actual instance of transmission from a person with an undetectable viral load on antiretroviral drugs to an uninfected person.
- yeukhon 9y ago
  > an undetectable viral load on antiretroviral drugs to an uninfected person Can you please put this into simpler terms? I am pretty confused. Because HIV transmission is not a theoretical and is not a myth. My understanding is, OP meant to say "transmission of HIV via known risky activities." --EDIT-- Thank you for those clarifying. Often the unfamiliar technical terms can throw me off.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    They are responding to The problem is that you need to take expensive medication for the rest of your life. And that you can infect other people. They are saying that there are no recorded instances of someone that is taking antiretroviral drugs and has an undetectable viral load actually transmitting the virus.
  - kentosi 9y ago
    If you're getting treatment, the amount of HIV in your blood is regularly measured as your "viral load". It's possible, with treatment, for people with HIV to have a viral load labelled undetectable. To date, from an article I read, there have been no recorded transmissions from people with an undetectable viral load. https://www.preventionaccess.org/faq https://www.preventionaccess.org/faq
    - vkou 9y ago
      Two questions arise: How many people taking retrovirals have undetectable levels of HIV? Are those people using condoms?
      - tatterdemalion 9y ago
Cozumel 9y ago
He means there's been tons of cures for it already, just from memory the African prostitutes that are immune to HIV (except now they all got infected, and the story was buried), the nanoparticles carrying melittin that could destroy HIV, the fact that horses are naturally immune etc etc after the initial media cycle it all gets buried, this will go the same way. HIV/AIDS is a multi-billion dollar business, no-one seriously wants to cure it.