09 Nov 05
I think it is highly likely the large pharmaceutical companies could develop a cure for AIDS. I suspect this cure is being held back for monetary reasons. If you were a multi billion dollar drug corp, and were hell bent on getting richer, would you want a cure? What better way to make profits then to make extremely expensive antiviral agents that never actually cure the Dz but prolong the life of the victim, making the victim dependent on them( ziagen,videx,hivid, nutropin). also, would that company benefit by control or spread of the disease? I am afraid that leaving the disease uncured, and allowing it to spread is much more lucrative then curing it. The large pharmacuetical companies also are very powerful politically, and I wouldn't be surprised if they have a hand in FDA's decisions regarding possible pharmaceutical breakthroughs. If anyone thinks this is paranoid, or far fetched you are in for a rude awakening.
any thoughts?
09 Nov 05
I'm confused about anti-retrovirals. Some say they're poisonous, others say they're essential. There's a pending court case in this country about a Dr Rohrer who advises people to go off ARVs & take his vitamins instead. His accusers say he's killing people, while he levels the same accusation back. What a mess.
(A long-term HIV positive friend of mine swears by healthy eating & exercise, when he isn't drinking).
09 Nov 05
Originally posted by helpmespockWhat makes you think anyone could develop a cure for AIDS right now?
I think it is highly likely the large pharmaceutical companies could develop a cure for AIDS. I suspect this cure is being held back for monetary reasons. If you were a multi billion dollar drug corp, and were hell bent on getting richer, would you want a cure? What better way to make profits then to make extremely expensive antiviral agents that never a ...[text shortened]... anyone thinks this is paranoid, or far fetched you are in for a rude awakening.
any thoughts?
09 Nov 05
Originally posted by helpmespockI recommend "The Constant Gardener" by John Le Carre. I don't ususally go in for his ilk, but this book is a masterpiece.
I think it is highly likely the large pharmaceutical companies could develop a cure for AIDS. I suspect this cure is being held back for monetary reasons. If you were a multi billion dollar drug corp, and were hell bent on getting richer, would you want a cure? What better way to make profits then to make extremely expensive antiviral agents that never a ...[text shortened]... anyone thinks this is paranoid, or far fetched you are in for a rude awakening.
any thoughts?
09 Nov 05
Originally posted by helpmespockFor once, I agree with one of your posts.
I think it is highly likely the large pharmaceutical companies could develop a cure for AIDS. I suspect this cure is being held back for monetary reasons. If you were a multi billion dollar drug corp, and were hell bent on getting richer, would you want a cure? What better way to make profits then to make extremely expensive antiviral agents that never a ...[text shortened]... anyone thinks this is paranoid, or far fetched you are in for a rude awakening.
any thoughts?
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=18&row=1
D
09 Nov 05
Originally posted by RagnorakDitto.
For once, I agree with one of your posts.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=18&row=1
D
It is sickening the way that governments conspire with the pharmaceutical companies to help them maximise profits.
About a year ago, the British gov. passed legislation allowin the drug manufacturers to write their research costs off the taxable bottom line.
Now they can minimise their profits by claiming hundreds of millions of pounds of turnover were swallowed up in R&D.
How the heck can their claimed R&D costs ever be checked?
09 Nov 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungbecause they have had ample time to research and develop the drugs. Because they have numerous anti-virals that attack the virus in many different ways, suggesting an intimate understanding of the viral biochemistry involved. Because they have had sufficient funding to develop a cure. It is my theory from having a bit of experience with the drug companies that they have no motivation to develop the cure.
What makes you think anyone could develop a cure for AIDS right now?
09 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagethey are both toxic, and essential. They are not unlike chemo tx agents. Clearly they are superior to chemotx agents as their adverse effect profile is much better. They have significantly improved the quality of life and life expectancy of the afflicted. It is a bothersome curiosity to me ;however, that it results in particularily advantageous situation for the greedy drug corps. Long ife with an incurable disease, and dependancy on extremely expensive meds....
I'm confused about anti-retrovirals. Some say they're poisonous, others say they're essential. There's a pending court case in this country about a Dr Rohrer who advises people to go off ARVs & take his vitamins instead. His accusers say he's killing people, while he levels the same accusation back. What a mess.
(A long-term HIV positive friend of mine swears by healthy eating & exercise, when he isn't drinking).
09 Nov 05
Originally posted by helpmespockDefine "ample time". As far as I know, no known cure for ANY virus has ever been found in the history of mankind. Bacteria, yes. Viruses, no. The only way to reduce the odds of getting a viral desease is vaccination.
because they have had ample time to research and develop the drugs. Because they have numerous anti-virals that attack the virus in many different ways, suggesting an intimate understanding of the viral biochemistry involved. Because they have had sufficient funding to develop a cure. It is my theory from having a bit of experience with the drug companies that they have no motivation to develop the cure.
09 Nov 05
Originally posted by DOlivier2004There were no cures for bacteria 80 years ago, till PCN was invented. In the last 80 years hundreds of cures for bacteria, parasites,mycobacterium, and fungi have been developed. We have had 25 years to work on AIDS, as well as all the collective medical theory on microbiology before AIDS. I think this is ample time. I guess my question for you is. Do you believe the drug companies would cure aids if they could. what about CA? Do you have any idea how much money they make on Chemotx treatments?
Define "ample time". As far as I know, no known cure for ANY virus has ever been found in the history of mankind. Bacteria, yes. Viruses, no. The only way to reduce the odds of getting a viral desease is vaccination.
09 Nov 05
Originally posted by helpmespockI guess ample time is a matter of opinion. If it takes 100 years to develop a cure for viruses, it will take 100 years. There is definitely some incentive for a drug company to develop a cure for AIDS, since they'd make a hell of a lot of business in the first few years, recouping their R&D costs, hopefully, through their patent. When after the first few years go by and AIDS is relegated to a normal run-of-the-mill STD, the cure turns into a cash cow. I wouldn't expect the AIDS virus to die out, but it will always be transmited despite any cure, thus there will be a steady market for the drugs companies.
There were no cures for bacteria 80 years ago, till PCN was invented. In the last 80 years hundreds of cures for bacteria, parasites,mycobacterium, and fungi have been developed. We have had 25 years to work on AIDS, as well as all the collective medical theory on microbiology before AIDS. I think this is ample time. I guess my question for you is. Do yo ...[text shortened]... they could. what about CA? Do you have any idea how much money they make on Chemotx treatments?
09 Nov 05
Originally posted by DOlivier2004I agree. Ample time is defined by wether they have found a cure or not. They haven't so there hasn't been ample time.
I guess ample time is a matter of opinion. If it takes 100 years to develop a cure for viruses, it will take 100 years. There is definitely some incentive for a drug company to develop a cure for AIDS, since they'd make a hell of a lot of business in the first few years, recouping their R&D costs, hopefully, through their patent. When after the firs ...[text shortened]... ways be transmited despite any cure, thus there will be a steady market for the drugs companies.
A cure for HIV (Aids is not a virus, it is a state of illness brought on by the HI virus) will definately not mean that pharmaceutical companies will lose profits.
To say pharmaceutical companies are supressing a cure for HIV is conspiracy theory crap, just like some of the rubbish being sprouted in the other AIDS thread today (see comment about Illuminati).
Apart from anything else, the pharmaceutical industry employs thousands and thousands of scientists who couldn't all be silenced. On top of that there is a lot of AIDS research being done outside the pharma industry.
So, a big no to the suggestion in this thread.
The reason there has been no cure is because we haven't found one. Period.
09 Nov 05
Originally posted by knightwestMy theory sounds far fetched to you? here is an irrefutable example of the drug companies foul play:
I agree. Ample time is defined by wether they have found a cure or not. They haven't so there hasn't been ample time.
A cure for HIV (Aids is not a virus, it is a state of illness brought on by the HI virus) will definately not mean that pharmaceutical companies will lose profits.
To say pharmaceutical companies are supressing a cure for HIV is conspi ...[text shortened]... n in this thread.
The reason there has been no cure is because we haven't found one. Period.
Amiodarone is an antiarrythmic drug approved for the use of treating both atrial and ventricular arrythmias. It does no better at tx venticular arrythmias then the less expensive old school lidocaine. The makers of amiodarone are one of the big pharm co. Using their money they got into the pockets of the ACA( American Cardiology assoc.) By essentially bribeing some big wigs they got the drug approved for ACLS protocol for code situations. The net effect of this is that it is standard of care in a code for a doc to use Amiodarone at 10 times the cost of the equally effective lidocaine.Now when you die if you make it to EMS or an Emergency room you will get amiodarone, or your Physician is liable for malpractice. So everyone who dies in the US, and arives at a hospital or EMS gets the drug company's expensive drug. The lidocaine sits idily by in the crash cart. There is no research that supports this use. There are thousands of cardiologists and emergency docs that by your explanation, have been silenced, because this nonesense continues. This is only one example of drug companies influencing how medicine is practiced for there own ends. I have many others.
09 Nov 05
Originally posted by knightwestalso if you read my post it is quite evident that curing aids would cost the drug companies money why? because they can only patent a drug for 7 years, then it has to be open to generic replicaton and competition. a cure for aids would mean the clock would start ticking on their profits for AIDS meds. once a drug goes generic thru free market competition the price goes way down. as long as there is no cure there will be thousnds of reatments. ever look in he cold and flu aisle of a drug store. WRPT aids all the drugs are Rx, and very costly.
I agree. Ample time is defined by wether they have found a cure or not. They haven't so there hasn't been ample time.
A cure for HIV (Aids is not a virus, it is a state of illness brought on by the HI virus) will definately not mean that pharmaceutical companies will lose profits.
To say pharmaceutical companies are supressing a cure for HIV is conspi ...[text shortened]... n in this thread.
The reason there has been no cure is because we haven't found one. Period.
It is extremely naive of you to believe that if there could be a cure ,there would be a cure.