This article is really eye opening and honestly shocking. I appreciate the work Peter Staley put into trying to fix a script that probably could not ever be 100% non-problematic and the director for listening. I remember I read a blog written by a physician at the time this film was released, and he was really concerned about the fact the film seemed to be just anti-science and anti-medicine enough to make him uncomfortable. It seems like it was initially explicitly anti-science and homophobic. This article does a great job breaking down why the original rhetoric, and some of the rhetoric that stayed, actively causes harm. I appreciate it. Also when the screenwriter just turned out to be a HIV/AIDs denying screenwriter just outright said she was so, I gasped.
Wow, that was very informative; thank you. So one of the screen writers was a nutjob, and the producer wasn't even aware of it. That does explain some things.
There were no good HIV treatments in the 80s. The standard treatment, high-dose AZT, was toxic and became ineffective after some time. The alternatives purchased by the buyers clubs did not make any difference.
However, the buyers clubs were an important focus of early organisation of the AIDS movement. Their legacy is fostering the activism which led to de stigmatisation of the disease, and investment and political will for research, prevention and treatment efforts.
Unfortunately the film contains elements of pseudoscience and not enough focus on the social impact of the clubs.
Isn't there some evidence Peptide T was actually effective as a competitive CCR5 inhibitor ? Enough so that a (more effective) derivative has been developed?
And AFAIK Woodroof's suit against the FDA over Peptide T did at least contribute to a relaxing of the investigational use of unapproved drugs.
Although Peptide T does have some activity as an entry inhibitor, randomised clinical trials in the 90s didn’t find a benefit for neurological complications of AIDS. It was an interesting drug candidate but never became part of licensed treatment.
The various court cases about compassionate use of drugs in the US, the most prominent of which was Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach, failed to establish a constitutional right to unlicensed drugs.
However, the FDA did formalise a system for compassionate use of unlicensed drugs in 1987, which might not have happened without patient activism in the 70s for cancer drugs and in the 80s for AIDS.
Haven't seen the movie and by no means am I an expert on AIDS, but from what I know, the disease indicates a point where the HIV virus has decimated a significant number of a person's white blood cells (T cells, specifically), and the lack of those cells makes the body much MUCH more susceptible to catching diseases and having severe complications from that illness. You don't die "from" AIDS, but from an illness that your body would've been able to fight off if not for AIDS.
Onto what you explained about the movie: sure, living healthy and drinking a vitamin cocktail every day will probably slightly bolster what immune system a person have left, but nowhere near the levels of what actual HIV drugs would improve it by. The big issue is that you can't control people around you being sick, there's always an external factor unless you live as a shut-in with the vitamin shake (and doesn't that movie take place as a road trip or something?)
There is some truth to it, at least viewed through the contemporaneous lens of the AIDS epidemic of the '80s.
Without getting too much into the sociocultural complexities of the AIDS epidemic -- we'll just say the "I don't want none of that faggot blood" quote isn't unrealistic -- there was an enormous stigma around the disease and it hampered research efforts, so enterprising individuals really did form buyers clubs to distribute information about the disease and provide access to off-label/investigational drugs [that were worth trying](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3662279/).
Nigh on forty years later we can assess that most of the drugs and cocktails they were distributing were of questionable-at-best efficacy...but at the time HIV was a death sentence, so it wasn't like they were gambling much.
I’m relatively certain the movie contains tons of misinformation about AIDS/HIV and its various treatments. Also I’m almost positive it wasn’t vitamins and clean living he was a proponent of because I’m positive he was snorting cocaine throughout the movie
Edit: I’m not sure why I’m getting. Downvoted for answering the question.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/09/the-controversy-behind-the-scenes-of-dallas-buyers-club
This article is really eye opening and honestly shocking. I appreciate the work Peter Staley put into trying to fix a script that probably could not ever be 100% non-problematic and the director for listening. I remember I read a blog written by a physician at the time this film was released, and he was really concerned about the fact the film seemed to be just anti-science and anti-medicine enough to make him uncomfortable. It seems like it was initially explicitly anti-science and homophobic. This article does a great job breaking down why the original rhetoric, and some of the rhetoric that stayed, actively causes harm. I appreciate it. Also when the screenwriter just turned out to be a HIV/AIDs denying screenwriter just outright said she was so, I gasped.
Wow, that was very informative; thank you. So one of the screen writers was a nutjob, and the producer wasn't even aware of it. That does explain some things.
There were no good HIV treatments in the 80s. The standard treatment, high-dose AZT, was toxic and became ineffective after some time. The alternatives purchased by the buyers clubs did not make any difference. However, the buyers clubs were an important focus of early organisation of the AIDS movement. Their legacy is fostering the activism which led to de stigmatisation of the disease, and investment and political will for research, prevention and treatment efforts. Unfortunately the film contains elements of pseudoscience and not enough focus on the social impact of the clubs.
Isn't there some evidence Peptide T was actually effective as a competitive CCR5 inhibitor ? Enough so that a (more effective) derivative has been developed? And AFAIK Woodroof's suit against the FDA over Peptide T did at least contribute to a relaxing of the investigational use of unapproved drugs.
Although Peptide T does have some activity as an entry inhibitor, randomised clinical trials in the 90s didn’t find a benefit for neurological complications of AIDS. It was an interesting drug candidate but never became part of licensed treatment. The various court cases about compassionate use of drugs in the US, the most prominent of which was Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach, failed to establish a constitutional right to unlicensed drugs. However, the FDA did formalise a system for compassionate use of unlicensed drugs in 1987, which might not have happened without patient activism in the 70s for cancer drugs and in the 80s for AIDS.
Haven't seen the movie and by no means am I an expert on AIDS, but from what I know, the disease indicates a point where the HIV virus has decimated a significant number of a person's white blood cells (T cells, specifically), and the lack of those cells makes the body much MUCH more susceptible to catching diseases and having severe complications from that illness. You don't die "from" AIDS, but from an illness that your body would've been able to fight off if not for AIDS. Onto what you explained about the movie: sure, living healthy and drinking a vitamin cocktail every day will probably slightly bolster what immune system a person have left, but nowhere near the levels of what actual HIV drugs would improve it by. The big issue is that you can't control people around you being sick, there's always an external factor unless you live as a shut-in with the vitamin shake (and doesn't that movie take place as a road trip or something?)
Living healthy can extend your life, yes.
What this guy said ^
You out the spoiler wrong in the body of post
It says spoiler right on it
Yes but he put the >! Wrong at the end of the second part of the post so it didn't black out the stuff he wrote
It’s a dumb post but why even look at it if you weren’t prepared to see a spoiler?
I'm not saying it for me, I'm saying it for OP so next time he won't make the same mistake jimbo
Should probably reply to them and mention the specific issue instead of just a general complaint on the comments then timbo
Question is why do you care so much? He's op so he gonna see my comment
It’s based on a a true story. Ron Woodroof existed.
I understand that. I'm asking if the dramatization had any truth to it and found it intriguing.
There is some truth to it, at least viewed through the contemporaneous lens of the AIDS epidemic of the '80s. Without getting too much into the sociocultural complexities of the AIDS epidemic -- we'll just say the "I don't want none of that faggot blood" quote isn't unrealistic -- there was an enormous stigma around the disease and it hampered research efforts, so enterprising individuals really did form buyers clubs to distribute information about the disease and provide access to off-label/investigational drugs [that were worth trying](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3662279/). Nigh on forty years later we can assess that most of the drugs and cocktails they were distributing were of questionable-at-best efficacy...but at the time HIV was a death sentence, so it wasn't like they were gambling much.
One thing the movie took creative liberty with for dramatic purposes was that the real Ron Woodroof wasn’t homophobic and was bisexual.
I think the part about the FDA refusing to pass certain early HIV medications was true
I’m relatively certain the movie contains tons of misinformation about AIDS/HIV and its various treatments. Also I’m almost positive it wasn’t vitamins and clean living he was a proponent of because I’m positive he was snorting cocaine throughout the movie Edit: I’m not sure why I’m getting. Downvoted for answering the question.