Part One: A New Hope in HIV Treatment
The journey to combat HIV/AIDS has encountered groundbreaking advancements over the past four decades. Initially, the only viably effective medication was AZT, which provided little help. Many healthy friends suffered tragic fates until the mid-1990s, when David Ho and his team introduced triple therapy. Although effective, the required scheduling and large number of pills made it burdensome. Thanks to the innovations in treatment, we saw a decline in deaths that were primarily caused by immune system failures. As reported in As a weekly anti-HIV pill nears the market, vaccine research faces new hurdles,
Rio de Janeiro – Recent developments in powerful anti-HIV drugs were unveiled at the 26th International AIDS Conference last week. Among the most notable discoveries was that a single weekly pill could effectively manage HIV in those living with it—a significant improvement over the usual daily regimen. However, as treatments advance, vaccine development faces new challenges, particularly concerning the potent antibodies aimed at stimulating underwhelming vaccine responses.
The conference’s atmosphere was notably subdued, with approximately 7,300 delegates attending, roughly one-third of the peak attendance seen between 2002 and 2012. The absence of world leaders and celebrities was somewhat reflective of progress—advances in science have made HIV less of an immediate concern.
However, the diminished turnout also stemmed from significant cuts in funding from the United States. Foreign assistance for HIV/AIDS saw a decline from $8.3 billion in 2024 to $6.2 billion in 2025, marking a 25% reduction according to findings presented by KFF and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). “Affordability of travel and registration fees has become a struggle due to the lack of grants,” notes Beatriz Grinsztejn, an infectious disease specialist at the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, who chaired the meeting. A report by the nonprofit amfAR indicated that as a result of these funding cuts, 46 countries closed nearly 1,700 HIV service sites, with prevention initiatives being the most affected. “The scientists have delivered,” stated Winnie Byanyima, leader of UNAIDS. “Now it’s time for the politicians to take action.”
…
In partnership with Merck, which produces islatravir, Gilead is exploring a combination pill that incorporates both drugs. Two trials presented at the conference—one of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine—demonstrated the combination’s effectiveness in hampering viral replication for one week. Both companies are preparing to submit their findings for regulatory approval.
With the anticipation surrounding this therapy, we might see HIV recede and AIDS become a distant issue, contingent on resource availability. Yet, progress on HIV vaccines has stagnated for the last forty years, and it is my cautious intuition that a breakthrough remains elusive unless unforeseen discoveries arise. Unfortunately, since vaccines aren’t a priority for the Current Administration, their impact on HIV seems limited, whereas other diseases might not face the same fate.
Part Two: The HPV Vaccine Proving Its Worth
According to a report from Cancer Research UK, the HPV vaccine shows promising results: New data indicates that the HPV vaccine is significantly reducing cervical cancer deaths:
The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has reportedly decreased the risk of cervical cancer death before the age of 30 to nearly zero, as stated in the first study evaluating lives saved by the vaccine (no paywall).
During the most recent five-year span (2020-2024), there were no reported deaths among women in their early 20s from cervical cancer in England. Approximately 90% of women in this demographic received the HPV vaccine, primarily at ages 12 or 13 when the vaccine offers optimal protection.
Cancer Research UK has been instrumental in linking HPV with cervical cancer and in developing the HPV vaccine.
“This is a milestone and a significant leap forward in our quest to eradicate cancer,” says Michelle Mitchell, the organization’s chief executive. “The HPV vaccine is exceptionally effective at preventing cervical cancer, and this research confirms that it saves lives.”
Let’s recap: The HPV vaccine has the potential to eliminate the risk of death from cervical cancer! While this remains an estimate, studies in other countries corroborate similar findings:
This is the strongest indication yet that the HPV vaccination program is not only preventing cervical cancer but also saving lives. Research indicates that approximately 200 cervical cancer deaths have been averted in England so far, but lead researcher Professor Peter Sasieni mentions this is merely the beginning.
“As vaccinated generations age, we anticipate many more lives will be saved from cervical cancer,” he explains.
“It’s remarkable to think that a single shot can nearly eradicate a specific type of cancer, and this research underscores the importance of maintaining high HPV vaccination rates for broader protection.”
Back in the early 2000s, when the HPV vaccine was first introduced in the United States, I found myself in a discussion with a parent of three boys. He insisted they didn’t need the vaccine because they don’t have a cervix. True enough! However, when I posed the question of whether he wanted them to potentially spread HPV, he was adamant they wouldn’t engage in such behavior. This mindset reflects a common belief among parents of my generation who think their children will avoid actions they once took.
It’s essential to note that HPV also causes oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) in the throat, tonsils, and tongue. Both boys and girls are susceptible, making the HPV vaccine effective against tonsil tumors as well. This brings us to honor the late physician-scientist who established the link between HPV and these cancers.
Maura L. Gillison was a remarkable physician and scientist:
From an early age, Maura Gillison knew she wanted to be both a doctor and a scientist. Although she trained in ballet, she soon found that her height of 6’2″ made serious dance performances unfeasible.
Instead, she forged a trailblazing path as a medical oncologist and molecular epidemiologist, focusing on head and neck cancers. In the early 2000s, she was recognized as the first researcher to definitively establish that HPV—the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection—was responsible for oropharyngeal cancers found in the throat, tonsils, and base of the tongue.
“No head and neck medical oncologist has impacted patients more than Maura Gillison,” remarked Dr. John V. Heymach, chair of thoracic and head and neck oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston where Dr. Gillison conducted research starting in 2017.
Dr. Gillison passed away on June 21 at her family home in Willoughby, Ohio. She was 61, and her husband, Dr. David E. Symer, an oncologist, noted that the cause was a rare cancer of the small intestine.
While smoking and heavy alcohol consumption cause the majority of OPSCC and other head and neck cancers, Dr. Gillison was open to emerging evidence. She recognized that many patients with OPSCC lacked the typical risk factors. Despite skepticism (I attended earlier discussions surrounding this controversial hypothesis), she pressed on and was proven correct:
In 2007, she led a team that conclusively demonstrated that HPV was responsible for throat, tonsils, and base of tongue cancer in a paper published in The New England Journal of Medicine. This subset of cancers differed from those of the mouth primarily caused by smoking and drinking.
In a 2011 interview with NPR, she suggested that the sexual revolution of the 1960s resulted in increased sexual partners and oral sex, subsequently boosting the risk of HPV-related infections and cancer.
Fortunately, HPV-induced tumors are significantly more treatable with focused, high-intensity radiation and standard chemotherapy (cisplatin) than those linked to smoking and excessive drinking, which often necessitate invasive treatments like surgeries. Thanks to Dr. Gillison’s research, many future patients may evade those harrowing regimens. As we look ahead, we anticipate that HPV-caused OPSCC will similarly decline like cervical cancer. However, it’s also worth noting that HPV vaccines may face criticism from those with outdated beliefs, including those who see sexual health education as distasteful.
Part Three: The Political Landscape Surrounding AI Data Centers
The rapid emergence of AI and its accompanying massive, energy-consuming data centers is a topic of ongoing debate in the news. A noteworthy conflict recently arose in Effingham County, Georgia, just inland from Savannah. The Current discusses the situation in Anatomy of a secret Coastal Georgia data center. Similar instances of opacity and self-serving dealings are infiltrating communities worldwide:
Last fall, Georgia’s largest utility company took on the role of facilitator, initiating contact with Effingham County officials regarding a proposal: one of the world’s biggest tech firms was in search of a suitable site for a data center.
This secretive collaboration, orchestrated by Georgia Power, culminated nine months later when OpenAI and Effingham County’s development authority sealed a $20 billion agreement for a data center on a 1,400-acre site near Rincon. Concurrently, the power company also established a new contract with OpenAI.
County leaders claim OpenAI’s investment will enable Effingham to abolish residential property taxes, enhance services, and position the county as a leader in the national digital economy.
However, the skepticism shared by many of Effingham’s 75,000 residents is palpable. As seen in other Georgia locales with newly established data centers, the AI expansion has stirred apprehension across the political spectrum—ranging from rising utility costs and environmental concerns to uncertainties surrounding tech firms’ influence on American democracy.
Weeks after the deal’s approval, significant questions linger about its impacts. Moreover, confusion surrounds the contradictory public statements from county officials about courting a data center while holding secretive discussions with OpenAI.
The head of the Effingham County Industrial Development Authority asserts that the projected $870 million in taxes OpenAI will contribute over 15 years demonstrates the project’s value to the county. However, the events leading up to the formal approval expose a lack of transparency and the prevailing uncertainty about whether the county retains decision-making power or if the California tech firm dictates actions.
My favorite point involves the $870 million in tax revenue that OpenAI commits over the next 15 years. What are the odds that Sam Altman’s venture will be operational in 15 years? Additionally, this incredible snippet stands out:
Development authority CEO Brandt Herndon, bound by a non-disclosure agreement with OpenAI until a week before the vote, stated that his board’s meetings are accessible per state law. However, he noted that few individuals attend these meetings, which—according to The Current—are rarely advertised online. “We have ensured that this transformative project serves the best interests of the county,” Herndon claimed.
The absurdity of these statements is astounding. The essential question is whether this will backfire on Brandt Herndon and his associates or on the residents of Coastal Georgia. Indications suggest the latter. Should this project materialize, prepare for the potential draining of the Floridan aquifer. Recent plant closures in Savannah have led to a rise in the water table. Anticipate a reversal in conditions if this water-intensive facility, along with the nearby Hyundai MetaPlant, comes to fruition. But what about the farmers? They’ll need to rely on increasingly fickle rainfall. On the bright side, maybe they could look into building desalination plants, considering the vast expanse of saltwater along the 100-mile coastline from the Savannah River to St. Marys.
Part Four: The Decline of Marsh Grass
Staying within Coastal Georgia, a scientist from the University of Georgia Marine Institute on Sapelo Island (established by Eugene Odum, widely considered the father of modern ecosystem ecology) has identified that The grass appears healthy, yet most of Georgia’s marshes are losing their roots due to rising sea levels (The Current, again the only reputable news outlet in Coastal Georgia). This scientific paper, co-authored by postdoctoral fellow Kyle Runion, is significant research that likely won’t receive support from the Current Administration in the future. The study’s findings are illustrated below:
As sea levels gradually rise, the biomass of Spartina alterniflora roots diminishes, ultimately leading to the grass’s death. While this concept isn’t complex, the outcomes may remain undetected until it’s too late. Indeed, we might already be at that point, yet the collapse of Spartina salt marshes won’t take us by surprise. Previously, we explored how exponential sea level rise appears gradual and linear for extended periods, only to accelerate suddenly. The modern mind struggles to fathom nonlinear progress, except perhaps regarding financial matters involving compound interest. This observation reaffirms that the most productive natural ecosystem globally will be inundated and devastated much sooner than expected. Historically, nature would have shifted marshes inland, giving people adequate time to adapt. However, it seems we’re facing a different reality now.
Part Five: Wendell Berry’s Insights on Contemporary Issues
It’s been a while since we’ve visited Front Porch Republic, where Daniel Vollaro features The Wendell Berry Moment. I recall Berry’s essay “Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer” when it was published in Harper’s, and the subsequent responses were quite memorable. Berry’s perspectives were illuminating, despite overlooking the benefits that computers can bring. I remember when molecular biologists relied on manual alignment for DNA or protein sequences. Advances in bioinformatics and DNA sequencing, alongside annotated genome sequences, have enabled much of modern biology as we know it. Yet, such benefits cannot excuse other challenges:
Berry has long understood that computers would ultimately be leveraged against us by governments and corporations, even while marketed as facilitators of efficiency and productivity. His sharp insights reveal a critical skepticism toward technology’s promises. “I have seen their advertisements, enticing struggling or faltering farmers into the belief that purchasing yet another high-priced device will resolve their issues,” he laments. “I know their propaganda campaigns that have introduced computers to public schools in need of books.” Demand proof that your technology will enhance my life—our lives—he implores. Convince me that computers result in more good than harm.
A particularly memorable statement from Berry’s essay is this: “When someone has used a computer to produce work that is demonstrably superior to Dante’s, and when this quality is clearly a result of computer usage, then I will regard computers with a more respectful tone, though I will still refuse to purchase one.” While various iterations of La Commedia have likely influenced numerous large language models, I doubt they can replicate it with anything close to Dante’s elegance. Regardless, this offers much food for thought—or is it nourishment for prudent reflection?
Thank you for reading. See you next week! In the meantime, carve out some screen-free time. Picture yourself engrossed in It All Turns on Affection in its paperback format. Berry provides valuable insights, particularly as the Current Administration attempts to undermine the National Endowment for the Humanities, a bastion of values contrary to those they advocate.
