Game Changer, Really...

Here's another article on the injectable form of Cabotegravir.  The claim is the same, an injection taken every 2 months that surpasses the benefits of daily Truvada for PrEP.  Yay! right?  Maybe not.

The problem's the same.  The research has only been conducted on men & those born male.   At least that's the data presented.  For a while, they've claimed research on how the med behaves with women was ongoing.  So far, nothing.

If a med doesn't treat half the population affected by an issue, it's hardly a game changer.  As usual women were left out of a medical study, because the outcomes were different or difficult.   Medical research has to get better or HIV is never going away.

Cya...

Yesterday's Dubious News...

Yesterday I posted on an injectable form of cabotegravir.  This is a medication I'd posted over before.  It's commercial pushed the medication as being for men or those born male only.   The articles over the injection imply the same.  Those born female were left out of the study.  

Allegedly there are studies going on with med concerning women.   Just not in time for the approval process.  This morning I saw articles praising this step forward in an injectable prevention means for those born male.  Only this piece acknowledged there was a woman problem.  Once again women been left out the study.  Even though women are taking the drug, oral & injected, there's little data on the matter.  Supposedly there are studies undergoing on both forms with women.  Where's the data?  Why not study & present both sexes at the same time?  

Again, women are left out of medical advancements.  I understand males & trans women make up the majority of HIV cases.  That doesn't justify this bias approach to research.  Women's medicine is consistently behind men's.  Why?  I bet that's an ugly answer.

Cya...

Uggh...

I'm sick of dreary, rainy days.  I need sunlight.   I'm spent.  It's supposed to be sunnier today.  I hope so, I need it.

There's 1 thing I hate more than not finding articles or finding only rehash/op-ed.  It's advice columnist.   These writers do their smoozy best to come off as accepting & supportive.  That's BS.  

These columnist have serious bias.  They just get these people writing in to show their guts & then the writer stomps on them.  The advisors harbor a slightly more restrained, cooler abhorrence against fringe groups not in vogue.

If the writer is younger, gay, trans, POC or liberal, they are part of the promised people.  Let them be older, white, religious & then by all means tear them down.  Older, white women, especially if slightly more affluent are prime targets.   These writers love telling people in the most Karen of ways just how out of touch they are.  They ridicule them for not being PC & being relics of their time.   

If you aren't part of their target demographic, then your fair game to attack.  To be advice-splained to about all the wrongness that is you.  Funny, I thought that was what the progressives accused of conservative of doing.  It always comes down to, "star on thars."

Cya...

HHS & Condoms...

It's been speculated that the Department of Health & Human Services may be anti-condom.   They have info on their site about condoms, but rarely promote it.   Instead they promote PrEP & abstinence.   

This piece is about an image the HHS wanted removed from fliers.  They say it wasn't approved.  It seems fairly straight forward. 

The article's an interesting read.  It details condom usage in a HIV fact sheet aimed at women.  It's since been altered to remove  the condom images.   Albeit condoms are cost effective & prevent much more than HIV, they aren't being pushed.   Maybe the HHS isn't getting any incentives to push condoms?

Cya...

Just The Facts...

Often, while reading articles, I don't just see the facts.  Even if the piece I'm scanning is over HIV related matters, I still find sentiment, opinion & judgement. Few today write objectively & it diminishes their work.  Let the writing stand on its own.  Present your analysis, not your biases.  I'm reading the work for the research, not social judgement.

For example, I saw an article today pointing out Black males  still make up a huge part of new HIV cases.   This wasn't just presented  as fact, this was a social judgement.  This point was never direct, but the meaning was clear.  Black male culture was incapable of taking care of this issue, so others, especially White others, needed to step in & take care of the matter.

Maybe authors are just oblivious to the implications.  These pieces imply Black men can't handle health matters.  It puts the onus on society to handle their inability.   1st, if this inability does exist, it's a cultural matter, not a disability.  These men are capable of handling their health concerns.  Finally, it's not anyone else's responsibility or right to step in on these men's health matters.  These attitudes are insulting & arrogant.

Write your research.  Give us the facts.  A writer is allowed to draw possible conclusions or even give opinions.  But those must be presented as the author's believes, not facts.  Definitely not as judgements on their subjects or society.

Take Care.

Cya...