Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

Subterms

    Latest story

    163 Shares159 Views

    Gilead Agrees to Allow Generic Version of Groundbreaking H.I.V. Shot in Poor Countries

    by

    Many middle-income countries are left out of the deal, widening a gulf in access to critical medicines.The drugmaker Gilead Sciences on Wednesday announced a plan to allow six generic pharmaceutical companies in Asia and North Africa to make and sell at a lower price its groundbreaking drug lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injection that provides near-total protection from infection with H.I.V.Those companies will be permitted to sell the drug in 120 countries, including all the countries with the highest rates of H.I.V., which are in sub-Saharan Africa. Gilead will not charge the generic drugmakers for the licenses.Gilead says the deal, made just weeks after clinical trial results showed how well the drug works, will provide rapid and broad access to a medication that has the potential to end the decades-long H.I.V. pandemic.But the deal leaves out most middle- and high-income countries — including Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, China and Russia — that together account for about 20 percent of new H.I.V. infections. Gilead will sell its version of the drug in those countries at higher prices. The omission reflects a widening gulf in health care access that is increasingly isolating the people in the middle.Gilead charges $42,250 per patient per year for lenacapavir in the United States, where it is approved as a treatment for H.I.V. The company has said nothing about what lenacapavir will cost when used to prevent H.I.V. infections, a process called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP.The generics makers — four companies in India, one in Pakistan and one in Egypt — are expected to sell it for much less. Researchers at Liverpool University found the drug could profitably be produced for as little as $40 per patient per year, if it were being purchased in large volumes.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Harris Must Persuade Gaza Protesters, Not Dismiss Them

      by

      At a campaign rally in the Detroit area on Wednesday, Kamala Harris was speaking about the threat of Project 2025 and the Trump agenda when a small group of protesters interrupted her. I couldn’t make out their words, but it was reported that they were shouting something about Gaza. Harris reacted with her trademark “I am speaking now.” The protesters persisted. Harris’s tone grew stern. “You know what?” she said. “If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.” She continued, to cheers from the crowd. The protesters were escorted out.When I watched a video of this scene, my heart sank. It reminded me of another interruption, at a Democratic fund-raiser at a nightclub in New York, 32 years ago. Bill Clinton was speaking when Bob Rafsky, a member of the AIDS activist group ACT UP, stood up to challenge him on his plans to deal with the AIDS epidemic. “We’re dying,” Rafsky said. Clinton engaged at first, saying he was running for president “to do something about it.” Rafsky continued to shout. Clinton became angry. “Would you just calm down?” he said.I knew Rafsky. I was a member of ACT UP, and a journalist covering AIDS in the gay press. When Clinton said, “Calm down,” I heard, Some things are more important than your life. In campaign math, this was probably true: Only a fraction of a percent of Americans were living with AIDS. Clinton had statistically bigger issues to address.Yes, before her Detroit speech, Harris met very briefly with a group of pro-Palestinian activists. But at the rally, I heard the same steely political calculus in Harris’s admonition to the protesters: She has to focus on beating Trump, not on a genocide occurring 6,000 miles away and affecting about two million people, some of whom are related to or have close ties with a small fraction of the American electorate for which the war in Gaza is a decisive issue in this election. And, like people confronting AIDS in 1992, Palestinian Americans and others who want an end to Israel’s war should know that the other candidate would be even worse.Such reasoning is as statistically sound as it is tone-deaf and emotionally blind. It appears that at least one of the protesters at the rally is of Palestinian descent. And given the demographics of the Detroit area, it is quite likely that others in the crowd were Palestinian Americans, very possibly with family and friends in Gaza who are at risk of being killed, whether by bombing, disease or starvation in the coming months, if they are not dead already.Rafsky died in February 1993, one month into the first Clinton administration. In November 1992, on the eve of the presidential election, he gave a speech standing by the coffin of another ACT UP member, Mark Fisher, who had asked that his body be carried through the streets of New York in protest.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Gilead Shot Provides Total Protection From HIV in Trial of Young African Women

      by

      An injection given just twice a year could herald a breakthrough in protecting the population that has the highest infection rates.Researchers and activists in the trenches of the long fight against H.I.V. got a rare piece of exciting news this week: Results from a large clinical trial in Africa showed that a twice-yearly injection of a new antiviral drug gave young women total protection from the virus.“I got cold shivers,” said Dr. Linda-Gail Bekker, an investigator in the trial of the drug, lenacapavir, describing the startling sight of a line of zeros in the data column for new infections. “After all our years of sadness, particularly over vaccines, this truly is surreal.”Yvette Raphael, the leader of a group called Advocacy for Prevention of H.I.V. and AIDS in South Africa, said it was “the best news ever.”The randomized controlled trial, called Purpose 1, was conducted in Uganda and South Africa. It tested whether the every-six-months injection of lenacapavir, made by Gilead Sciences, would provide better protection against H.I.V. infection than two other drugs in wide use in high-income countries, both daily pills.The results were so convincing that the trial was halted early at the recommendation of the independent data review committee, which said all participants should be offered the injection because it clearly provided superior protection against the virus.None of the 2,134 women in the arm of the trial who received lenacapavir contracted H.I.V. By comparison, 16 of the 1,068 women (or 1.5 percent) who took Truvada, a daily pill that has been available for more than a decade, and 39 of 2,136 women (1.8 percent) who received a newer daily pill called Descovy were infected.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Report Finds ‘Catalog of Failures’ in U.K. Contaminated Blood Scandal

      by

      A six-year inquiry found that the deaths of about 3,000 people and the infection of tens of thousands of others could have mostly been avoided.A “catalog of failures” by government and medical officials in Britain, most of them avoidable errors, led to blood contaminations that killed about 3,000 people and infected more than 30,000 others over two decades, according to a long-awaited report published on Monday.The report is the product of a six-year inquiry that the British government ordered in 2017 after decades of pressure from victims and their families, and it could pave the way for sizable compensation payments.The independent report puts a harsh spotlight on Britain’s state-run National Health Service, identifying “systemic, collective and individual failures” by British authorities as they dealt with the infections of tens of thousands of people by tainted blood transfusions or contaminated blood products between the 1970s and the 1990s.The authorities at the time refused to acknowledge those failings — including the lack of proper screening and testing of blood — by “hiding the truth,” the report said.“This disaster was no accident,” Brian Langstaff, a former High Court judge who led the inquiry, said at a news conference on Monday. “People put their trust in doctors and the government to keep them safe, and that trust was betrayed.”He added, “The N.H.S. and successive governments compounded the agony by refusing to accept that wrong had been done.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      The Teacher Shortage: Why, and What to Do?

      by

      More from our inbox:Mr. McCarthy, Put Country Before EgoDebate, Yes, but Without an AudienceReauthorize PEPFARHow Unions Help Companies Eleanor DavisTo the Editor:Re “People Don’t Want to Be Teachers Anymore. Can You Blame Them?,” by Jessica Grose (newsletter, nytimes.com, Sept. 13):As a retired teacher, I read this with heartfelt interest. Ms. Grose noted the cost of getting a degree, low pay and lack of respect as leading causes for our current shortage of teachers.Then again, when I entered the College of Education at the University of Minnesota in 1980, my friends thought I was crazy. There was little respect even then. Pay was even worse.I began as a pre-law student my freshman year in college. And then it happened. I saw the light. I remembered those teachers who had saved me. Teachers who had seen potential in me that I could not see for myself. My life was transformed by teachers.The courtroom seemed like a selfish ambition. The classroom felt like a journey of love, an opportunity to be inspired and to inspire each and every day. I walked into my college guidance counselor’s office and asked to transfer into the College of Education.No regrets. The 35 years I spent in the classroom taught me so many important lessons. I learned the importance of believing in excellence. I learned that I could help others become excellent. And most important, I discovered that belonging to a professional learning community was eternally gratifying.I understand that people don’t want to be teachers anymore. That was true in the 1980s, too. But for many of us who did become teachers, bliss. Can you say the same in your job today?Dan LarsenBarrington, Ill.To the Editor:Jessica Grose is spot on that financial barriers, mental wellness, culture wars and a profession that is out of step with the wants and needs of this generation are all contributing to teacher shortages across the country, especially in low-income communities.She also notes that people who consider teaching later in life could be a source of optimism. Don’t count Gen Z out. We just welcomed over 2,200 new Teach for America teachers — 40 percent more than last year, and most are recent college graduates.This generation is giving us so much optimism: They understand the experiences and needs of today’s students, and want careers that have meaningful impact, align with their values and foster community. Collectively we have to create the conditions for this generation to say yes to careers in education.Jemina R. BernardStamford, Conn.The writer is president and chief operating officer of Teach for America.To the Editor:I agree with everything Jessica Grose has to say in this piece about the current decline in the number of college graduates who choose to become teachers. I would, however, suggest an additional reason for this decline. Simply put, women graduates today have more career choices than in the past.When I graduated in 1962, most of my friends and I became teachers. What were our choices? Teaching, nursing, or go to Katharine Gibbs and learn to type. Today I have two 24-year-old granddaughters; one is an architectural engineer, the other is enrolled in a graduate program that will enable her to become a clinical researcher.Neither even considered a career as a teacher. Nor did my 51-year-old daughter, who is an attorney.Beverly StautzenbachVenice, Fla.Mr. McCarthy, Put Country Before Ego Kenny Holston/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Hard Right in Congress Sows Havoc,” by Carl Hulse (news analysis, front page, Sept. 25):Mr. Hulse’s article is deeply disturbing insofar as 20 or so radical conservative Republicans can force a government shutdown.There is a simple solution if Speaker Kevin McCarthy would choose to put the country before his own political ego and his party: Walk across the aisle with willing Republicans and speak with Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic minority leader, to vote with the Democrats to approve the budget.Mr. McCarthy should ask himself what a leader and patriot like Senator John McCain would do in a similar situation. Mr. McCarthy’s constituents might surprise him with their support if he demonstrates some real courage.Brian HousealBrunswick, MaineDebate, Yes, but Without an Audience Brian Snyder/ReutersTo the Editor:My suggestion to improve the debates being broadcast on TV would be to get rid of the audience. Then candidates would no longer waste time throwing out these sound bites for the applause and cheers.Perhaps that may help them to listen to the question posed to them by the moderator and possibly answer it.In addition, getting rid of the audience might even force people watching the debates at home to think for themselves when making a decision regarding a candidate, since they would have no idea what everyone else is thinking.Imagine that.Laura KleinPinecrest, Fla.Reauthorize PEPFARAdministering an H.I.V. test in 2012 at a Johannesburg clinic supported by PEPFAR.Foto24/Gallo Images, via Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Will Republicans Abandon This Medical Triumph?” (column, Sept. 21):Nicholas Kristof’s piece about PEPFAR is spot on: PEPFAR’s work to prevent and treat H.I.V. and AIDS around the world has saved over 25 million lives, and should absolutely be reauthorized by Congress.But even beyond that extraordinary achievement, PEPFAR has ushered in a culture of accountability and efficiency across virtually all sectors of global health, not just H.I.V. and AIDS care.PEPFAR’s accountability standards require foreign governments and implementing NGOs to use data, evaluations (such as randomized control trials), and advanced analytics to measure results and demonstrate value for money.The result: It now costs PEPFAR dramatically less to save each life. In 2014, it cost $315 to give lifesaving treatment to one person for one year. By 2022, that had fallen to $59. Those are industry-changing results.Countries are now using tactics developed by PEPFAR for other health programs, from disaster response to seasonal outbreaks.With PEPFAR’s focus on efficiency and results, the American people can be confident that another five-year authorization would be money well spent.Hannah CooperTyler SmithThe writers are the co-founders of Cooper/Smith, an organization focused on using data to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of foreign aid programs.How Unions Help Companies Evan Cobb for The New York TimesTo the Editor:What has been missing in articles about the current United Auto Workers strike at General Motors, Ford and Stellantis is that having a union is not just about fighting for good wages and benefits but also about fighting for its important role in helping companies.Having a union, whether it’s at G.M., Starbucks or a hospital, can help management avoid making bad decisions, create innovative changes by utilizing the skills and knowledge of the frontline staff, and optimize the use of new technologies.Having a “collective voice” to pressure management to avoid making bad decisions and consider alternative approaches has resulted in improving productivity and the quality of products in companies and hospitals up to 30 percent, reducing costs and at times creating new jobs and additional revenue.Maybe the current strike can help U.S. managers realize that unions can be of benefit to them, too, rather than view them as a burden?Peter LazesWest Stockbridge, Mass.The writer is a visiting professor at the School of Labor and Employment Relations, Penn State, and co-author of the book “From the Ground Up: How Frontline Staff Can Save America’s Healthcare.” More

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Secrets Ed Koch Carried

      by

      Edward I. Koch looked like the busiest septuagenarian in New York.Glad-handing well-wishers at his favorite restaurants, gesticulating through television interviews long after his three terms as mayor, Mr. Koch could seem as though he was scrambling to fill every hour with bustle. He dragged friends to the movies, dabbling in freelance film criticism. He urged new acquaintances to call him “judge,” a joking reference to his time presiding over “The People’s Court.”But as his 70s ticked by, Mr. Koch described to a few friends a feeling he could not shake: a deep loneliness. He wanted to meet someone, he said. Did they know anyone who might be “partner material?” Someone “a little younger than me?” Someone to make up for lost time?“I want a boyfriend,” he said to one friend, Charles Kaiser.It was an aching admission, shared with only a few, from a politician whose brash ubiquity and relentless New York evangelism helped define the modern mayoralty, even as he strained to conceal an essential fact of his biography: Mr. Koch was gay.He denied as much for decades — to reporters, campaign operatives and his staff — swatting away longstanding rumors with a choice profanity or a cheeky aside, even if these did little to convince some New Yorkers. Through his death, in 2013, his deflections endured.Now, with gay rights re-emerging as a national political tinderbox, The New York Times has assembled a portrait of the life Mr. Koch lived, the secrets he carried and the city he helped shape as he carried them. While both friends and antagonists over the years have referenced his sexuality in stray remarks and published commentaries, this account draws on more than a dozen interviews with people who knew Mr. Koch and are in several cases speaking extensively on the record for the first time — filling out a chapter that they say belongs, at last, to the sweep of history.It is a story that might otherwise fade, with many of Mr. Koch’s contemporaries now in the twilight of their lives.Mayor Ed Koch “compartmentalized his life,” his former chief of staff said.Neal Boenzi/The New York TimesThe people who described Mr. Koch’s trials as a closeted gay man span the last 40 years of his life, covering disparate social circles and political allegiances. Most are gay men themselves, in whom Mr. Koch placed his trust while keeping some others closest to him in the dark. They include associates who had kept his confidence since the 1970s and late-in-life intimates whom he asked for dating help, a friend who assisted in furtive setups for Mr. Koch when he was mayor and a fleeting romantic companion from well after his time in office.The story of Mr. Koch that emerges from those interviews is one defined by early political calculation, the exhaustion of perpetual camouflage and, eventually, flashes of regret about all he had missed out on. And it is a reminder that not so long ago in a bastion of liberalism, which has since seen openly gay people serve in Congress and lead the City Council, homophobia was a force potent enough to keep an ambitious man from leaving the closet. More