An End to Seroconversion

A report in the Montreal Gazette today noted that researchers have found that certain AIDS medication originally meant for people with HIV has been shown to block the transmission of the virus to negative people if taken prior to sex. The researchers used monkeys in their trial where they administered the two different drugs and then inserted both the monkey and human forms of HIV rectally into monkeys. None of the monkeys got HIV while all but one of the monkeys not receiving the drugs did. Worried that the drugs might only be blocking the “absorption” or detection of HIV, the researchers then waited four months after the last dose and HIV injection, and found that none of the monkeys had developed HIV either. The researchers are now looking to conduct human trials.

The report also noted that a number of people have already done their own personal trials by taking their partner’s or friend’s HIV medication. While I greatly welcome this new development, there are some implications that are undoubtedly involved in this. The first, which was noted by certain professionals, is that this would just lead to unsafe sex practices. While yes, this is true, and the prospect that a virus such as HIV or a resistant form of HIV could be passed, it would undoubtedly lead to a change in habits.

But what I find most disturbing about this development is that it is precisely in the best interests of the drug companies to have a means of controlling HIV in this way rather than a cure for those who are already inflected or a vaccine to protect those who are not. What this amounts to is a lifetime supply of funds from sexually active people. If there were a cure or a vaccine, this would be a one-stop-shop-and-pop. Have it and its over. But instead, with this method, the supply of pills will flow and flow and flow with the profits to go directly to those companies that have chosen this method.

Of course, this is a bit of a cynical point of view, but there is far less money in destroying AIDS than in managing it. And whether we like it or not, drug manufacturers are not in the business for altruistic reasons. The basis of our system is that profit drives innovation. If a company has the choice between a quick influx of cash at one moment and a steady income over years and years, what choice will they make?

But nothing would make me happier than being proved wrong on this one. I can remember, in my old single days, being very worried about getting HIV myself. I entered the gay life at a time when it was a far more deadly disease than it appears now. I have seen people I love withered from the ravages of this tiny replicating organism. I can imagine the feeling of the freedom from the shackles of worry about whether any act was too dangerous, too risky, too clumsy. The rite of passage of waiting for test results (even if I didn't believe that I had anything to worry about) is something I think people can do without.

I still hope for the day when the headline is a cure. In the meantime, I guess I should maybe take off my cynic hat and actually be thrilled that maybe no one else will have to go through the difficulties and pain that some of friends and former lovers have had to deal with and stop caring about whether someone else makes money out of it. For to be honest, one is more important than the other.