this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
909 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5313 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] astreus@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Definitely wasn't bad faith and I do stand by it.

Vaccine does not mean cure. We did not have a Covid cure either. And much like the covid vaccine isn't 100% effective, neither is this. However, it is proving effective, especially in combination with other drugs and at certain stages of treatment.

Stage 4 clinical trials were concluded in Cuba in 2017. Stage 2 trials were concluded in the US in 2023. I believe, strongly, that the embargo has increased the amount of time the research has taken - cooperation is impossible during an embargo.

Even if they lift the embargo tomorrow the drug wouldn't come on the market, however it is because of the embargo that the use in treatment has taken far, far longer than it would have otherwise.

Edit: I admit I knew less about the vaccine than I thought I did (edited my comment to reflect what I have learnt)

[–] Ranvier@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I agree it may have presented barriers for coordination the FDA and access to US markets. I haven't been able to dig deep into the Cuban studies, but just because something is labeled a phase 3 or phase 4 by the investigators doesn't necessarily mean it was done to the standards necessary for fda approval or in the correct context of current standard of care treatments in the US or who knows how many other issues. If it was fully ready for all markets as is and required no further investigations, and it was only the US FDA causing problems, I would expect it to have already been widely available in many other countries that don't have embargos with Cuba, like all of Europe. Currently it's only available in Cuba, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Peru, and Paraguay.

Mostly though I didn't want someone to accidentally misread this and think it meant cure. I realize you did not say that, but it's just a common misreading I've noticed people make of the term cancer vaccines when they've been mentioned in popular media. Didn't want someone to drag their poor dying relative off to Paraguay thinking they're getting cured.

I agree the Cuban embargo is ridiculous, should be stopped, and is hurting both countries with no benefit to anyone (other than keeping a certain segment of voters in Florida happy).

[–] astreus@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

like all of Europe

While Europe does not have an embargo, up until 2016 the EU and Cuba basically had 0 relationship. The EU created "The Common Position" in 1996 which was "to encourage a process of transition to a pluralist democracy" in Cuba which the Cuba government rejected as meddling in their internal affairs.

Then in the 2000s there was a bigger spat where Cuba even started rejecting EU aid.

But since 2017 they've actually really warmed relations so this is a super good point!

Thank you for kicking off these research dives with your comments.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

"yes, it works, and has been independently verified" makes it seem like it is 100% ready for us markets but not available. That's not the case, and it seems you knew that.

[–] astreus@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

100% ready for us markets

How would that be possible during an embargo?

If a treatment is developed in the EMA, there's a level of cooperation that means drugs can come to market quickly if proven safe and even somewhat effective (Covid vaccine is an extreme example). This treatment would likely be US ready without the embargo in place.

it seems you knew that

My original comment was a glib link to a wikipedia page. I had not done the research and have edited my comment above.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Your last sentence here would change the sentiment of your original comment in a positive way. I encourage an edit.

[–] astreus@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

Oh yeah, already edited.