why no AIDS cure?

Originally posted by helpmespock
My theory sounds far fetched to you? here is an irrefutable example of the drug companies foul play:
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. ...[text shortened]... of drug companies influencing how medicine is practiced for there own ends. I have many others.

I think you have the wrong idea on the reasons for using amioderone over lidocaine.

Although no drug improves survival to discharge (from hospital) amioderone has shown an increase in survival to hospital (i.e. if you arrest and get amioderone you're more likely to make it to the hospital alive). I sincerely doubt there's a big conspiracy by the drug companies to rip people off by making drugs that get more of them to the hospital alive 🙂

Another reason for it's use outside the hospital setting may be because of the different half-lifes of the 2 drugs (one fairly short, the other quite long). Drugs with long half-lifes tend to be better in the community because people forget to take them, take them at different times of the day etc.

Originally posted by dags
I think you have the wrong idea on the reasons for using amioderone over lidocaine.

Although no drug improves survival to discharge (from hospital) amioderone has shown an increase in survival to hospital (i.e. if you arrest and get amioderone you're more likely to make it to the hospital alive). I sincerely doubt there's a big conspiracy by the drug compa ...[text shortened]... n the community because people forget to take them, take them at different times of the day etc.

yes you made my point about amiodarone, but don't seem to get it.

quoting yourself, because you are correct here

"...although no drug improves survival to discharge..."

I left that out of my post because I didn't want to make this a medical roundtable. This is the dodgey part. It doesn't improve survival to d/c. So everyone will get this in the EMS or hospital setting, unless you are a DNR, and it will not make you one more bit alive 24-48 hours later. In fact these people are admitted as vegatables to the ICU's. Who makes out? Not the patient, their gonna be just as dead in a day or two. It is an absolute croc, and a good example of Pharmaceutical monkey business.
the Pharmaceutical companies have a long track record of using essentially bribery and coercion to influence the use of ever more exoensive drugs, with very shoddy research to back up their claims. Our country(America) is filled with docs who don't read the literature at all, or at least not critically, and end up treating viruses with Omnicef, or giving their hypertensive patient the latest greatest most expensive B blocker, when atenolol would be fine.

Originally posted by helpmespock
yes you made my point about amiodarone, but don't seem to get it.

quoting yourself, because you are correct here

"...although no drug improves survival to discharge..."

I left that out of my post because I didn't want to make this a medical roundtable. This is the dodgey part. It doesn't improve survival to d/c. So everyone will get this ...[text shortened]... hypertensive patient the latest greatest most expensive B blocker, when atenolol would be fine.

I got the point I would just prefer pople at least got to hospital alive and had the chance at recovery. Amioderone is better for doing that than lidocaine.

Dr's certainly get kickbacks from drug companies. But I think the overprescribing of amioderone is a result of Dr ignorance not drug company cohersion.

Different drugs work in different ways and what's right for one Pt with HT might not be right for another. Same goes for people with AF or any other condition. If the same drug worked for everyone with a particular condition there would only be 1 drug in each class of drug.

Atenolol is a great drug for the conditions it was designed to treat. But different causes of HT need to be treated differently.

I know drug companies do shonky things. The Bex powder scam is a great example of drug company planned addiction.

Would you want amioderone or lidocaine if you arrested? For me it's a no-brainer 🙂

Originally posted by dags
I got the point I would just prefer pople at least got to hospital alive and had the chance at recovery. Amioderone is better for doing that than lidocaine.

Dr's certainly get kickbacks from drug companies. But I think the overprescribing of amioderone is a result of Dr ignorance not drug company cohersion.

Different drugs work in different ways and wha ...[text shortened]... diction.

Would you want amioderone or lidocaine if you arrested? For me it's a no-brainer 🙂

I would be pissed if any of my colleagues (EM docs), gave me amiodarone. as you have clearly agreed, the research shows it doesn't improve survival to discharge one bit better then Lido. So what do you want, another day or two in a vegetative state in he ICU while some disgruntled overworked RN or LPN is wiping your ass, and yanking on your foley, giving your loved one's a false sense that maybe you'll make it? Raising the cost of you(and everyone else's) death by perhaps 10,000.00 of unnecessary ICU care? Contributing to the rising problem of unbridled healthcare costs, and unaffordable insurance premiums? Yes, for me it is a no brainer as well....

There is no independant research that shows one B blocker oral Therapy is better than another with respect to HTN in the out patient setting, so why use them? Crappy anecdotal evidence about adverse profles are another Pharm gimmick.I am not talking about comparing Ca channel blockers to B blockers or such, I'm talking about the difference between tenormin and atenolol for HTN and comarisons like that. Or the ridiculous number of ace I....

Originally posted by helpmespock
I would be pissed if any of my colleagues (EM docs), gave me amiodarone. as you have clearly agreed, the research shows it doesn't improve survival to discharge one bit better then Lido. So what do you want, another day or two in a vegetative state in he ICU while some disgruntled overworked RN or LPN is wiping your ass, and yanking on your foley, givin ...[text shortened]... en tenormin and atenolol for HTN and comarisons like that. Or the ridiculous number of ace I....

I know it doesn't improve survival to discharge more than a tiny itty bitty little bit. But I would think that more live ones in would equal more live ones out 🙂 I guess what I'm saying is don't you want people to at least have the chance?

I see the point about not wanting to waste money or have overworked Rn's etc. But where do you draw the line? Ok so I know we do all the time but that's not the point.

Tenormin = Atenolol there is no difference.

Do you have "DNR" or GET OFF" tattoed on your chest?

Originally posted by helpmespock
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.

How do you know how much time or funding it would take? How do you propose that the pharmaceutical companies deal with the virus in it's latent state? How do you propose that we handle drug resistance created during reverse transcription of the viral genome? How many other viral diseases do you know that have a cure? I don't think either polio or smallpox have cures; just vaccines.

I don't doubt that there is greed and corruption involved; but I think you overestimate by far the influence of these factors in preventing a cure from being found.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
How do you know how much time or funding it would take? How do you propose that the pharmaceutical companies deal with the virus in it's latent state? How do you propose that we handle drug resistance created during reverse transcription of the viral genome? How many other viral diseases do you know that have a cure? I don't think either polio or sm ...[text shortened]... nk you overestimate by far the influence of these factors in preventing a cure from being found.

Another reason why no cure is has been found might be that the underlying hypothesis is seriously flawed.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Another reason why no cure is has been found might be that the underlying hypothesis is seriously flawed.

That's always a possibility. Can you elaborate?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
How do you know how much time or funding it would take? How do you propose that the pharmaceutical companies deal with the virus in it's latent state? How do you propose that we handle drug resistance created during reverse transcription of the viral genome? How many other viral diseases do you know that have a cure? I don't think either polio or sm ...[text shortened]... nk you overestimate by far the influence of these factors in preventing a cure from being found.

I don't of course have the answers to these questions, and I don't offer myself as a microbiologist or molecular biologist. I simply wanted to provoke a little thought into some beliefs that are likely assumed by many. That is that EVERY thing is being done to find a cure. Also that the most powerful people involved, ie the large pharm co. necessarily have the same agenda that you or I might have. One thing that I am quite certain of is that the companies I am referring to do not have as there priority finding a cure. They are all about making large profits and have shown in the past that they are not going to let human suffering and injury deter them from increasing their profit margin, not if they don't get caught(nerontin, vioxx). It stands to reason then that one should at least consider what they are actually doing in regards to AIDS
Also the political pull that these companies have with the FDA and the govt is enormous. I wanted to get people thinking on that end. An example of their political pull, manipulating the FDA and their lack of concern with the truth is the FDA ban(recently in part lifted) on ephedra based products. This ban came about because otc ephedra was cutting into the drug companies diet market profits significantly. It was banned, not because there was evidence that it was dangerous to the American public, as we were led to believe, but because they were losing profits. Does anyone want to deny this fact?
I wanted to make people aware just how powerful these companies are, just how much influence they have on our lives, just how little they care about you or my health, and get people questioning how far this goes.

Originally posted by helpmespock
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?

This seems unlikely. You are right that drugs that don't cure it are more profitable, and that is definetly the reason why the big companies don't spend more money researching a cure. The point is, it takes a tremendous amount of money to bring a drug to market, why would they bother to develop the cure at all, and waste their money. I don't think they have the best interests of humanity at heart, but I don't think they have a cure either, why would they bother wasting the money to develop it?

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
This seems unlikely. You are right that drugs that don't cure it are more profitable, and that is definetly the reason why the big companies don't spend more money researching a cure. The point is, it takes a tremendous amount of money to bring a drug to market, why would they bother to develop the cure at all, and waste their money. I don't thin ...[text shortened]... t I don't think they have a cure either, why would they bother wasting the money to develop it?

I don't mean to say they have a cure, but that they probably have been proposed ideas for a cure by their research and dev dep., and have not been acting on actively pursuing it, because it is not their most profitable option.
I guess I miscommunicated, I don't think they are hiding a cure from us, just not directing their efforts in that way.

Originally posted by helpmespock
I don't mean to say they have a cure, but that they probably have been proposed ideas for a cure by their research and dev dep., and have not been acting on actively pursuing it, because it is not their most profitable option.
I guess I miscommunicated, I don't think they are hiding a cure from us, just not directing their efforts in that way.

With that, I agree with you. There is no obvious cure that could be developed right now, but they certainly aren't going out of their way to find one with the money they make off treatments. The same is true of other drugs, it is more profitable to make Viagra than to work on finding cures for actual diseases, espcially when it is the poor who have them but can't pay.

Originally posted by helpmespock
I don't mean to say they have a cure, but that they probably have been proposed ideas for a cure by their research and dev dep., and have not been acting on actively pursuing it, because it is not their most profitable option.
I guess I miscommunicated, I don't think they are hiding a cure from us, just not directing their efforts in that way.

Consider this:
EVERYTHING has to be done to get a cure for cancer.
EVERYTHING has to be done to get a cure for diabetes.
EVERYTHING has to be done to wipe out fatal heart disease.
EVERYTHING has to be done to wipe out muliple scerosis
EVERYTHING has to be done to wipe out polio.
EVERYTHING has to be done to wipe out malaria.

If you have the power to find the cure to do all these things, but you don't have the resources, then you have to focus on which disease to concentrate. It would be absolutely brilliant if you could do everything, but you can't.

But which disease to concentrate on? AIDS? Cancer? Malaria? Which is more important? This (in a nutshell) is what the drugs companies have to choose.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's always a possibility. Can you elaborate?

Apparently, it's definitely *not* always a possibility, according to received opinion.

Consider the following facts, conceded by most AIDS researchers, though sometimes only grudgingly.

A putative virus, from a class thereof (retroviruses) previously only found (at best) to cause rare cancers in animals, is now universally regarded as the primary of cause a heterogenous array of diseases (not, incidentally, invariably linked to immunodeficiency, such as dementia), or (in Africa) non-specific symptoms (like persistent weight loss), even though:

(a) the precise mechanism whereby it is alleged to do so has never been established, and even it were, would be inconsistent with how every other well-understood virus causes disease (e.g., it doesn't multiply as much, antibodies don't confer immunity);

(b) the measurement and detection of the virus is largely a presumptive rather than a demonstrative affair, though evidence of measurement inconsistency is rife;

(c) the epidemological variations in HIV infection and AIDS are unprecedented for a sexually transmitted disease (prostitutes, who in the Western world aren't at substantially greater risk, are supposed to be the primary diesase vectors in Africa; HIV and AIDS strike mostly men in the Western World, but strike men and women equally in Africa);

(d) incredibly, penile-vaginal intercourse does not transmit HIV reliably enough to sustain an epidemic (despite all the hysterical media hype in the 80's, how thankfully abating). Official estimates, which themselves can be contested methodologically, say that, in the West, it takes 1000 intercourses to transmit HIV from man to woman, and 6000 the other way around.

(e) people with HIV and AIDS overwhelmingly belong to groups who, for one reason or another, face serious risks to ther health, which are sufficient to partly explain their signs and symptoms.

As far as I can see, these facts, considered collectively, raise serious questions about the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. You can always may auxiliary assumptions that prevent any one of them decisively refuting the hypothesis. However, these auxiliary assumptions themselves are often questionable. For example, the epidemiological inconsistencies between the U.S. and Africa are often explained by Africans being more promiscuous than Westerners. However, is this an empirical fact, or just a standard racist presupposition about raging African libidos? Multiply the glib auxiliary assumptions together and they bcome collectively less probably, casting serious doubt on the viability of the hypothesis as a whole, in its original form.

Unfortunately, to think like this is to risk ridicule.