Advertisement

TheBodyPRO.com Covers CROI 2016

Feature

What Should the Next U.S. President Do to Advance the Fight Against HIV?

April 12, 2016

 1/16 

What Should the Next U.S. President Do to Advance the Fight Against HIV?

We're over 30 years into the HIV epidemic and still have a long way to go. With the upcoming election and health care issues being top of mind, we wonder what the next U.S. president will do to continue the fight against HIV. We asked some of the leading HIV experts and advocates what they would tell the next U.S. president to do in order to keep advancing the fight. These interviews were conducted at CROI 2016 in Boston.

Additional reporting for this slide show was provided by Myles Helfand and JD Davids.

Get Started



Related Stories

What's the Most Overlooked Issue in HIV Care Today?
What Would You Ask the Next U.S. President About HIV?
Men Are Not Macaques and Other Lessons From Long-Acting PrEP Study



This article was provided by TheBodyPRO.com. It is a part of the publication The 23rd Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.
 


Reader Comments:

Comment by: Tez Anderson, Let's Kick ASS (San Francisco, CA) Sun., Apr. 17, 2016 at 11:36 am UTC
With half of the people living with HIV over the age of 50, we need to seriously focus on HIV and Aging issues. We need to bridge the HIV agencies and providers with those providing services and care for an aging population. For those living longest with HIV—long-term survivors—50 is the new 60. We need to standardize what being "older" means. 50 is reasonable because of accelerated aging. It is telling that none of those questioned made that a priority. And Treatment as Prevention needs parity with PrEp as an option. And we need PrEP campaigns targeting older adults. They are at risk it they are negative and the risks for folks who are positive the complications are greater.
Reply to this comment


Comment by: Tom (Chicago) Wed., Apr. 13, 2016 at 7:22 am UTC
I'd like to see the government capture some of the patents of drugs, the development of which it is co-funding, as a way of scaling-back greed (10,000-to-1 mark-up on manufacturing costs, especially for drugs that have decades earlier paid-back development costs). We must return the wording "reasonable profits" to the NIH funding documents that offer support to corporations engaged in drug development.

We don't let bank robbers claim, "I'm going to do a lot of good with this money (if you let me keep it)!" Why do we let the pharma-mafia claim that? "Citizens United" (not!) and "Free Trade Agreements" (not!) are simply tools to prevent the sharing of the rewards of public investments WITH the public.

We don't let bank robbers claim, "I took all the risk! Therefore, I deserve all the money." We are a nation of shared risk takers. We need a government that increases the number of CEOs and stock traders getting long prison terms.

The profits (~$30 Billion) on AZT alone, which WAS the property of US tax payers, could have funded 100 years of clinical trials in the ACTG (at its present funding of about $300 Million per year). Why are we giving-away patents? What value did private industry add to AZT that public (NIH) funding had not already discovered/added?
Reply to this comment


Add Your Comment:
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)

Your Name:


Your Location:

(ex: San Francisco, CA)

Your Comment:

Characters remaining:


Please note: Knowledge about HIV changes rapidly. Note the date of this summary's publication, and before treating patients or employing any therapies described in these materials, verify all information independently. If you are a patient, please consult a doctor or other medical professional before acting on any of the information presented in this summary. For a complete listing of our most recent conference coverage, click here.

Advertisement

The content on this page is free of advertiser influence and was produced by our editorial team. See our content and advertising policies.