San Francisco low-income housing co-op for people with HIV, AIDS fights to stay open
A low-income housing cooperative for people with HIV and AIDS is fighting to stay open in San Francisco.
On Sunday afternoon, Marty's Place hosted an Emergency Punk and Drag Fundraiser at El Rio bar on Mission Street to bolster its legal defense fund and protect its residents.
The board of directors says the property owners, the non-profit Mission Action, are threatening to terminate their lease five years before it's set to expire in 2030.
Paul Aguilar, who currently lives in the facility, is one of many people trying to keep it open.
"When it was founded by Father Richard Purcell it was a place for people with AIDS to die," said Aguilar, thinking back to a time when AIDS was a death sentence. "Now it's a place for people with HIV to live."
Purcell's property was transferred to Mission Action in 2011 after his death.
Aguilar moved into Marty's Place in November of 2021 when he was at his lowest.
"I struggled to even wake up in the morning," said Aguilar.
At the time, he was 58 years old, living with HIV, and suddenly found himself homeless.
Aguilar says he didn't know what he was going to do until he visited his friend and president of Marty's Place Michael Rouppet.
"He's like, 'You're exactly where you need to be,' and I'm like, 'What are you talking about? I'm at Marty's Place?' and he goes, 'That's where you need to be,'" recounted Aguilar.
If evicted by Mission Action, members of Marty's Place say many of them will have nowhere to go. It will also end what is believed to be the only co-housing for people living with HIV or AIDs in the county.
It changed Aguilar's life.
"I ended up getting this position at the San Francisco AIDS Foundation with their aging services department," said Aguilar. "Being someone who was supposed to die at 30 years old, being 58 was a freaking miracle, but to be able to work with the community is amazing."
It's hard for him to think about the possibility of losing his home.
"The thought of that is stifling," Aguilar said. "That now at soon to be 62 years old to be homeless again."
Co-founder, President of the Board of Directors, and resident Michael Rouppet says they've been trying to come to an agreement with Mission Action for years.
"We had made a proposal to purchase," said Rouppet about conversations the board has had with Mission Action. "We suspect and they've indicated that they want to sell the property and what better way to sell it? We invited them to work with us. Unfortunately, they broke that trust and tried to leverage us in court."
Rouppet says they have a model that works and can be used to help other low-income communities.
He believes it needs to be protected and Aguilar agrees.
"I never plan to leave," said Aguilar. "They're going to have to find a way to carry me up the stairs to my room."
At this point, there is no set move-out date.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Historic Aussie-first breakthrough in fight against condition impacting 40 million
In a groundbreaking leap forward in the global fight against HIV, researchers at Melbourne's world-renowned Doherty Institute have developed a revolutionary method that could one day pave the way for a cure, using the same mRNA technology that powered COVID-19 vaccines. This discovery gives fresh hope to the nearly 40 million people around the world living with HIV. While today's treatments can keep the virus under control, they can't remove it completely. That's because HIV hides in a type of white blood cell, staying asleep and undetectable. But if treatment stops, the virus can wake up and spread again. For decades, this hidden "reservoir" has been one of the biggest obstacles to finding a cure. Now, researchers believe they've found a way to reach these sleeping cells and wake the virus up in a safe and controlled way, while the patient is still on their usual medication. Speaking to Yahoo News Australia, Dr Michael Roche, a Senior Research Fellow at the Doherty Institute, explained how his team used mRNA wrapped inside tiny fat-like bubbles called lipid nanoparticles. These nanoparticles are designed to travel directly to infected cells. Once inside, the mRNA sends instructions to the cell to make a protein called Tat — a natural HIV protein that tells the virus it's time to wake up. "Tat is a protein that helps the virus 'wake up' when the virus wants to," Dr Roche said. "Here we are using Tat to wake the virus up when we want to." This process is often called the "shock and kill" strategy. The idea is to force the virus out of hiding while the patient is still on HIV medication, so the virus can't spread and can instead be targeted and destroyed by the immune system or future therapies. The discovery is still in early stages, but it's the first time mRNA has successfully reached and activated the HIV reservoir in a lab setting. The team's next step is to test the treatment in animal models to check if it's safe and if it works. "We are looking for two signals," Dr Roche said. "Firstly, safety. Secondly, efficacy — whether it can wake up dormant HIV in animals." These trials will take a few years. Only after passing those tests can human trials begin — first to ensure the treatment is safe, and then to test how well it works in people. A key advantage is that this therapy uses the same technology that powered the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. "Our therapeutic is based on the same technology — mRNA and lipid nanoparticles — used in the COVID vaccines," Dr Roche said. "The global rollout of these vaccines has shown that this approach can be scaled and distributed globally." He pointed to a new BioNTech mRNA facility in Rwanda, which is being set up to support production in areas with a high burden of HIV. The team is also focused on making sure the treatment, if successful, can be made affordable and accessible. "We are committed to ensuring any cures we develop are scalable, accessible and affordable," Dr Roche said. Aussies warned over widespread danger emerging in homes Concerning roadside find reveals dangerous trend landing Aussies in hospital Controversial 'alcohol alternative' coming to Woolworths this month In Australia, around 29,000 people are living with HIV. New infections have dropped over the past decade thanks to wider access to HIV prevention medication (PrEP), regular testing, and strong treatment programs. The country recorded its lowest number of new HIV cases in over 20 years in 2022. But some challenges remain. In 2023, there was a slight increase in new cases, mostly among people born overseas and those infected through heterosexual contact. Still, the long-term trend is positive, and now, with this research, a cure no longer feels out of reach. If successful, this approach could one day mean people living with HIV no longer need daily medication, and may even be able to live completely free of the virus. As the world watches closely, Australia's scientists are once again leading the charge. Do you have a story tip? Email: newsroomau@ You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube.
Boston Globe
14 hours ago
- Boston Globe
The research lost because of Trump's NIH cuts
The NIH has rarely revoked funding once it has been awarded. Out of the tens of thousands of grants overseen by the institution Then Donald Trump was reelected. Advertisement Since his January inauguration, his administration has terminated more than 1,450 grants, withholding more than $750 million in funds; officials have said they are curbing wasteful spending and 'unscientific' research. The Department of Government Efficiency gave the agency 'The decision to terminate certain grants is part of a deliberate effort to ensure taxpayer dollars prioritize high-impact, urgent science,' said Andrew G. Nixon, the director of communications for the Department of Health and Human Services. He did not respond to questions about the terminated grants or how patients may be impacted, but he said, 'Many discontinued projects were duplicative or misaligned with NIH's core mission. NIH remains focused on supporting rigorous biomedical research that delivers real results — not radical ideology.' Advertisement Targeted projects, however, were seeking cures for future pandemics, examining the causes of dementia and trying to prevent HIV transmission. The mass cancellation of grants in response to political policy shifts has no precedent, former and current NIH officials told ProPublica. It threatens the stability of the institution and the scientific enterprise of the nation at large. Hundreds of current and former NIH staffers It has been difficult for scientists and journalists to convey the enormity of what has happened these past few months and what it portends for the years and decades to come. News organizations have chronicled cuts to individual projects and sought to quantify the effects of lost spending on broad fields of study. To gain a deeper understanding of the toll, ProPublica reached out to more than 500 researchers, scientists and investigators whose grants were terminated. More than 150 responded to share their experiences, which reveal consequences that experts say run counter to scientific logic and even common sense. They spoke of the tremendous waste generated by an effort intended to save money — years of government-funded research that may never be published, blood samples in danger of spoiling before they can be analyzed. Advertisement Work to address disparities in health, once considered so critical to medical advancement that it was Researchers catalogued many fears — about the questions they won't get to answer, the cures they will fail to find and the colleagues they will lose to more supportive countries. But most of all, they said they worried about the people who, because of these cuts, will die. Research Frozen The NIH often awards funding in multiyear grants, giving scientists the time and intellectual freedom to pursue their work uninterrupted. They plan experiments, hire staff and make equipment purchases on long timelines. Now, studies can't be completed. Papers can't be published. Years of research may be lost and millions of dollars wasted. After the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, demographer Diana Greene Foster set out to study the outcomes of pregnant patients who showed up in emergency departments. She wanted to know whether state restrictions were causing delays in care. 'This needs to be answered for courts to consider the evidence,' said Foster, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco. 'Every day that goes by, people are potentially at risk.' Less than one year into a five-year NIH grant, she had arrived at some early findings: 'Abortion bans don't stop very many people from getting abortions,' she said. 'Bans actually cause people to have their abortions later in pregnancy.' For those who live in states with bans, she found, second-trimester abortions increased from 8% of procedures to 17%, requiring more complex interventions to end their pregnancies and increasing their risk of complications. Advertisement But before the data could be published, the NIH informed her on March 21 that the grant was terminated. It was no longer in line with agency priorities, a letter stated, specifying that studies on 'gender identity' 'ignore, rather than seriously examine, biological realities.' The termination left Foster confused. 'They are wrong that studying gender minority populations is not important,' she said. 'But my study is not about gender identity. It is relevant to anyone who is pregnant, regardless of how they identify.' Foster had to pause her research while she searched for other funding. 'This was clearly a politically motivated cut,' she said. ProPublica heard from more than 70 researchers who said that they were unable to continue their projects due to the terminations. 'Two and a half years into a three-year grant, and to all of a sudden stop and not fully be able to answer the original questions, it's just a waste.' Ethan Moitra, associate professor at Brown University, who was researching whether brief therapy can improve mental health for LGBTQ+ people. 'We are now scrambling to figure out if there are parts we can continue or salvage.' Julia Marcus, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, who was researching whether HIV prevention medicine can be made available over the counter. 'To build trust between health care providers, health researchers in communities takes decades of work, and scientists have already done the work. Now this is going to be depleted.' Jesus Ramirez-Valles, professor at the University of California, San Francisco, who was examining how HIV impacts the physical and mental health of gay men as they age. Advertisement Patient Studies Interrupted In addition to jeopardizing data, terminating a grant in the middle of an active study may worsen participants' conditions and put them at higher risk of death. A single daily pill can nearly eliminate the risk of contracting HIV — but only when taken as prescribed. Black and Latino men who have sex with men have more than a Working with community clinics across Mississippi, Washington, D.C., and Rhode Island, Brown University professors Amy Nunn and Dr. Philip Chan set out to examine The study provides aggressive case management to help patients navigate the health care system and stay on the treatment, known as pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP, which is available in both oral and injectable forms. Workers provide patients with reminders, help them get coverage and even pick up their medicine. In 2023, the researchers received about $3.7 million in NIH funding for five years of work. Their team was just starting to gather data that showed the program's efficacy when the grant was terminated. 'This is science that had really great chances of having a huge impact, and all of a sudden, it's cut off at the knee,' Nunn said. Advertisement Chan told ProPublica that he worries that the patients in their study could be harmed by the cut. 'There's no doubt that some of them are going to not stay on PrEP,' said Chan, 'and that some of them are going to get HIV.' At least 30 researchers told ProPublica that the termination of their grant forced them to end clinical research or a trial abruptly, leaving participants in limbo. 'We cannot assay the blood samples that we have collected and paid participants for. A total waste of the money and resources that went into collecting the data.' Sarah Whitton, professor at the University of Cincinnati, who was identifying risk factors for mental illness and suicidality for young LGBTQ+ women. 'We have also had to quickly scramble to keep the study going unfunded to avoid having to stop the treatment and clinical trial for those already enrolled.' Tiffany Brown, assistant professor at Auburn University, who was developing an eating disorder treatment for LGBTQ+ patients. 'With a clinical trial, if you can't follow participants to the end, you have no information, because the whole point is to see whether there's change from beginning to end.' Katie Biello, professor and chair of epidemiology at Brown University's School of Public Health, who was trying to improve adherence to medication protocols for adolescents with HIV in Brazil. Disparities Disregarded The Trump administration has banned the NIH from funding grants with a perceived connection to 'diversity, equity and inclusion,' alleging that such projects may be discriminatory. Caught up in the wave of terminations is work seeking to understand why some populations — including women and sexual, racial or ethnic minorities — may be more at risk of certain disorders or diseases. Despite preventative vaccines and improved screening, more than 4,000 women die every year from cervical cancer. Black and Hispanic women are more likely than their white peers to be diagnosed, and often at later stages. After more than a decade of studying cancer care disparities, epidemiologist Adana Llanos found that the ZIP code in which a woman received care often plays a pivotal role in how she fares. And in 2023, Llanos and her colleagues were awarded a multiyear NIH grant to further examine inequities, specifically in cervical cancer care and who survives it. Even though their work targets the women most at risk, Llanos said their research, like most health equity research, will increase our understanding of cervical cancer more broadly. 'This work has the potential to improve cancer outcomes for everyone, no matter what you identify as, no matter what your characteristics are,' she said. Last year, her team began to recruit a cohort of 960 women who had been diagnosed with cervical cancer to track their patterns of care and outcomes. But in March, after the researchers had enrolled about 200 participants, the NIH terminated the funding. Llanos paused enrollment. The cancellation felt like a betrayal of her study's participants, she said. Llanos had spent years developing relationships with community groups and cancer patients, gaining their trust so they would feel comfortable sharing their treatment experiences. 'We've made commitments to them,' she said. More than 550 of the terminated grants were focused on health disparities or inequities, attempting to understand why some groups have different health outcomes. 'If you cannot identify groups that are higher risk, it seems like just really bad science. That's sort of the basics of how you try to conquer a disease.' Carl Latkin, professor at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health, who was analyzing the comorbidities of people who have HIV and those at risk for getting it. 'Health disparities are just going to get larger, and real folks are going to die.' Marguerita Lightfoot, professor at the Oregon Health & Science University–Portland State University School of Public Health, who was studying the value of guaranteed income and financial mentoring to Black youth. 'It's a major principle of epidemiology to target work towards the people who are being disproportionately affected. Now we're being told that we cannot mention them in our research.' Dr. Matthew Spinelli, assistant professor at the University of California, San Francisco, who was working to prevent sexually transmitted infections with common antibiotics. LGBTQ+ People Targeted One of Trump's first executive orders was a directive In response to a lawsuit, a federal judge issued an injunction barring the administration from Gay, lesbian and bisexual adults are over three times more likely to consider suicide than their heterosexual peers. Few studies have aimed to figure out how to prevent this. Last year, Lauren Forrest, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, received a multiyear grant to do so, focusing on LGBTQ+ people who live in rural areas where access to specialized care may be more limited. She was planning to recruit dozens of participants. But on March 21, she received a notification from the NIH that her grant was terminated because it did not 'effectuate' the agency's priorities, citing its connection to 'gender identity.' 'The way they're going about deciding which grants will or won't be terminated, it's not about scientific rigor,' she said. 'It's about literally actively discriminating against health-disparity populations.' Forrest has been forced to reduce the hours of her research staff, and she now risks losing key lab personnel who may have to seek other employment due to the cuts. 'There is no way to recover the lost time, research continuity or training value once disrupted,' she said. She worries most about the deaths that could have been prevented. 'People are going to be harmed because of this,' she said. More than 300 of the grants terminated by the NIH were focused on LGBTQ+ health care. About 40 of those grants were researching ways to prevent suicide in adults and youth. 'We have a paper that's ready to go out that shows lesbian women are almost 3 times as likely to have a stillbirth compared to their heterosexual peers. That's such an avoidable, horrible outcome to happen, and that paper may never be published.' Brittany Charlton, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, who was quantifying obstetrical outcomes for lesbian, gay and bisexual women. 'It is devastating to have state-sanctioned dehumanization and exclusion. I am afraid for what these messages will do to the mental health of youth who are told they don't matter or, for some, that they don't even exist by parts of society.' Dr. Sarah Goff, professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who was studying how to improve the delivery of mental health care to LGBTQ+ youth. 'I honestly burst into tears. The evidence we would have gained from this work will not exist.' Kirsty Clark, assistant professor at Vanderbilt University, who was finding best practices for preventing suicide in LGBTQ+ preteens. Losing a Generation The grant terminations and subsequent instability have created a lost generation of scientists, dozens of researchers told ProPublica — cutting off an established pipeline at all stages of researchers' careers. Universities are trimming the number of openings in postdoctoral and graduate programs. Young researchers are struggling to find funding to initiate studies or open new laboratories. And some scientists are opting to pursue opportunities abroad. Dr. Lauren Harasymiw was a medical resident in a neonatal intensive care unit when an infant took a turn for the worse. Born at only 23 weeks gestation — the edge of viability — the baby girl experienced a hemorrhage within the ventricles of her brain. 'What does this mean for her?' Harasymiw recalls asking her attending physician. The supervisor didn't know. 'The field of neonatology has made incredible strides over the last decades in helping our babies survive,' Harasymiw said. 'But we've made less progress in protecting their neurodevelopmental outcomes.' If doctors could better assess infants' outcomes after a brain injury, they could target interventions sooner and provide families with better resources. To advance this area of medicine, Harasymiw pursued NIH-funded training to become a pediatric scientist. But in March, the NIH terminated funding for the Pediatric Scientist Development Program, which funded Harasymiw's salary and research, claiming that the program was connected to 'DEI.' 'This is just ripping out the foundation of my career,' Harasymiw said. In a statement about the grant terminations, Nixon, the HHS spokesperson, said that the NIH 'continues to invest robustly in training and career development opportunities that produce measurable contributions to biomedical science and patient care.' However, he added that 'while fostering the next generation of scientists is essential, effective leadership requires clear focus: prioritizing research that is impactful and results-driven over duplicative or low-yield programs.' Dr. Sallie Permar, who runs the program and is chair of pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine, was perplexed by the cut; the program seemed to be in line with the administration's focus on combating chronic disease in children. 'That's exactly what we're training these scholars to do,' she said. More than 50 researchers told ProPublica that the funding cuts would harm the next generation of scholars, discouraging them from practicing in the United States. 'We have a generation of researchers that were planning to focus on these questions that are now either scared or don't have funding to continue their training, or both.' Mandi Pratt-Chapman, associate center director for community outreach, engagement and equity at the George Washington Cancer Center, who was identifying best practices for collecting data about LGBTQ+ people at small and rural cancer centers. 'Admissions for graduate school have been downsized to a point where prospective students are giving up on pursuing a Ph.D.' Tigist Tamir, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who received a career development grant and was studying how oxidative stress is regulated in breast cancer and obesity. 'I already know several researchers on the job search who ended up taking faculty positions in Canada instead of the U.S.' Dr. Benjamin Solomon, instructor of immunology and allergy in the department of pediatrics at Stanford Medical School, who received a career development grant and was examining rare genetic immune diseases in children .
Health Line
17 hours ago
- Health Line
HIV: As Scientists Inch Closer to a Vaccine, Cuts to Funding Could Stall Progress
The Trump administration reportedly plans to cut almost all funding for HIV vaccine research. Experts say the decision comes at a time when research in this field is making substantial progress. Many effective treatments are available for HIV, but these are lifelong commitments that manage a chronic disease rather than cure it. Treatments for HIV infection have come a long way since the 1980s, when too many lives were lost during the epidemic. Today, antiretroviral therapies and other treatments allow people with HIV to live longer lives and, in many cases, prevent the transmission of the virus that causes the disease to other people. Scientists now say the next step in the fight is a vaccine that protects against HIV. However, that next development could be on the chopping block. Trump administration officials reportedly plan to halt funding for a wide array of HIV vaccine research. Researchers told CBS News they have been informed by officials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has instructed the agency not to issue any more funding during the next fiscal year for HIV vaccine research. NIH officials said HHS officials have instead decided to 'go with currently available approaches to eliminate HIV.' The decision will close down HIV vaccine research projects at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute and the Scripps Research Institute, according to a report in the journal Science. Officials at Moderna also told CBS News that their current clinical trials on HIV vaccines have been put on hold. Experts say the decision to cut funding for an HIV vaccine is short-sighted and reckless. 'I'm stunned by this decision,' said Jake Scott, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford University in California who specializes in infectious diseases. 'There is no scientific or medical evidence to justify these cuts at the exact moment this field is showing real promise,' he told Healthline. Carl Baloney Jr., the chief executive officer-elect of AIDS United, agreed. 'Eliminating funding for HIV vaccine research undermines decades of scientific progress and turns our back on a future where HIV could be preventable for all, regardless of where someone lives, their income, or access to healthcare,' he told Healthline. Why an HIV vaccine is important Experts say that treatments for HIV are incredibly effective. However, they note that most involve daily adherence and aren't necessarily readily available or affordable for many people. 'There are a lot of good options, but they can be really expensive,' Scott said. 'These medications are also not a cure. They are a lifetime burden.' The experts add that people with low levels of HIV in their system can still have weakened immune systems. That can raise the risk of serious infections as well as inflammation that can lead to conditions such as heart disease. 'A vaccine can help prevent all this,' said Scott. Experts note that a vaccine research program may be difficult to put back together even if a new administration restored funding in the near future. They say it took decades to build these programs and restarting them would take time. In addition, researchers will leave the field of HIV prevention to set up shop in another industry that is receiving funding. 'We could lose an entire generation of scientists,' said Scott. 'This is setting the field back a decade or more at a critical time.' 'This isn't just about canceling [a] clinical trial. It's about sidelining the scientists, institutions, and community partners driving innovation forward,' added Baloney. 'These setbacks could delay the development of a successful HIV vaccine by years or even decades.' How scientists fought against HIV The first treatment for HIV was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1987. Azidothymidine (AZT) was first developed in 1964 as a treatment for cancer. It was ineffective in that usage, but in the 1980s, scientists discovered AZT could suppress HIV replication without damaging healthy cells. It helped treat people with AIDS as well as people who were HIV positive but had no symptoms. In the 1990s, other nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) were developed and approved. Laboratory tests to measure viral load and cell counts accelerated this research. From there, scientists experimented with combining drugs to help counter the HIV virus's ability to mutate and replicate. In 1996, a triple-drug therapy proved effective in thwarting HIV replication and creating a barrier against drug resistance. Since then, these antiretroviral drugs have become more effective and more available. The effectiveness of these medications is nothing short of miraculous. In the 1980s, the average life expectancy after an AIDS diagnosis was one year. Today, people who adhere to combination antiretroviral drug therapies can expect to live a near-normal life span. In some cases, the medications can reduce the HIV viral load in a person to the point where the virus is undetectable and can't be transmitted to another person. How is HIV treated today? More than 50 types of HIV medications are now approved for use. Some of the more commonly used antiretroviral medications are: Combination NRTI drugs that include Truvada and Descovy. These medications work by preventing HIV from converting its RNA into DNA. This prevents the virus from making copies of itself.. Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) that include Vocabria and Biktarvy. These drugs work by blocking an enzyme that HIV uses to put HIV DNA into human DNA inside cells. Protease inhibitors (PIs) such as Lexiva and Crixivan. These medications work by blocking an enzyme that HIV needs as part of its life cycle. Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) that include Intelence and Viramune. These drugs work by preventing the HIV virus from making copies of itself. Entry inhibitors such as Fuzeon and Selzentry. These medications work by blocking HIV from entering CD4 T cells. In addition, there are drugs known as Cytochrome P4503A (CYP3A) inhibitors, such as Tybost and Norvir, that help boost the levels of HIV medications in the bloodstream. There are also medications known as post-attachment inhibitors that when used with antiretroviral drugs can help prevent HIV from entering immune cells. Trogarzo was the first of these drugs to become available, having been approved in 2018. In addition, there are attachment inhibitor medications, a newer form of HIV drug that works by attaching to a viral protein, which prevents that protein from entering healthy T cells. Only one type of this medication, Rubokia, is currently available, having been approved in 2020. Most people with HIV are given medications, but there also are long-acting injections that are given once a month or once every other month. Scott said these treatments are cures that have turned HIV into a 'managed chronic disease' to the point where he and other colleagues now refer to AIDS as 'advanced HIV.' Baloney said, however, there are limits to how much treatments can do. 'Current treatments and prevention tools have transformed HIV into a manageable chronic condition, but they are not a cure and they're not accessible to everyone,' he said. 'An HIV vaccine would be a game-changer, especially for communities facing systemic barriers to care.' Preventive measures for HIV Even with the available treatments, experts agree that it's better for a person if they don't contract HIV in the first place. They say condom use, along with dental dams and gloves, can be effective barriers to contracting HIV. Limiting sexual partners is also recommended, as are sterile needles for intravenous drug users. Getting tested for HIV is also an important component. It's estimated that more than 1 million people in the United States have HIV, and 13% of them don't know they have contracted the virus. There are medications available that can be taken as a precaution or after potential exposure to HIV. These drugs include: Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP): These medications can be taken as a daily pill or a bimonthly injection. The first injectable PrEP drug was Apretude, which was approved by the FDA in 2021. Truvada can also be used as PrEP therapy. These medications help prevent HIV from getting a foothold in the body. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) drugs: These are designed to be taken within 72 hours of potential exposure to HIV. It is a pill ingested once a day for 28 days. Lenacapavir: This injectable drug has been tested in clinical trials as a potential PrEP therapy. The FDA is scheduled to vote on its approval on June 19. Experts say all these preventive measures are good practices, but they note that vaccines are still the most effective.
