10 Nov 05
Originally posted by DOlivier2004Clearly, AIDS is the most important one the focus on, has it has to do with sex.
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 pow ...[text shortened]... ria? Which is more important? This (in a nutshell) is what the drugs companies have to choose.
10 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMy mother is a doctor. She has been studying ever since she left varsity because she doesn't believe in allopathic medicine. She never prescribes anti-biotics or other 'harmful' prescription medicines. She rather uses energy medicine and nutritional healing.
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).
I was her biggest critic, until my Asthma was cured after suffering since a child. I now play sports etc when before I couldn't. I literally went from a chronic asthmatic to just carrying a ventilator for emergencies. I hardly ever use it unless I smoke (which is rather stupid of me, but hey nobody is perfect.)
Anyways, the point is that a lot of doctors feel the same way as Markus Rohrer. Being a doctor in South Africa means you encounter countless AIDS patients. My mother shares his views.
10 Nov 05
Originally posted by DOlivier2004actually what most drug companies consider important today is...EVERYTHING MUST BE DONE TO MAKE BIG PROFITS.
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 pow ...[text shortened]... ria? Which is more important? This (in a nutshell) is what the drugs companies have to choose.
thats the point of my post. Obviously there are good scientists, everywhere, thousands of them workng on treating/curing all these things. My point here is, merk,pfizer,johnson&johnson, are all about profit, and are less concerned with cures, and more concerned with inventing expensive drugs to treat symptoms. They have more control than people realize as to what will be brought on the market. If it hurts their profit you can be sure they are working behind the scenes, lobbying, bribeing, whatever it takes to suppres it, even if it could cure AIDS.
That s really the point of my thread. I wanted to know what others thought about this.
10 Nov 05
Originally posted by helpmespockYou say that as though it was a bad thing. If drug companies don't make profits, then they go out of business. Less companies out there making drugs. The pace of innovation slows down. Less cures can be developed.
actually what most drug companies consider important today is...EVERYTHING MUST BE DONE TO MAKE BIG PROFITS.
There's a survey that The Economist did about the pharmaceutical industry that was published on June 16, 2005 about the problems that Big Pharma have at the moment. This thread has inspired me to read the survey over the weekend, so that I can fully respond here. What little I've skimmed makes sense to me and that is that since the blockbuster drugs such as Viagra was produced, more business-type guys were drafted into the boardrooms instead of scientists. Because many of these companies are public companies, they have to think short-term, i.e. make the numbers every quarter. This short-termism has caused some problems, how much of it related to drug marketing and production, I don't know. But the trouble that they are in is giving opportunities to smaller companies to make strides in the industry and develop drugs and cures that the big companies can't (or won't) make.
Going back to my original point, when I said that a choice has to be made as to which urgent disease has to be cured, profit is one way that companies make their choices. Considering that AIDS is one of the major causes of deaths from infectious diseases in the world, I'd say that drug companies have one hell of an incentive to find a cure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_diseases#Mortality_from_infectious_diseases
I'll probably revise this post once I read the survey this weekend.
10 Nov 05
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole(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);
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 primar ...[text shortened]... esis as a whole, in its original form.
Unfortunately, to think like this is to risk ridicule.
The mechanism is extremely well established. It destroys the cells of the immunce system among other things. They have electron microscope images of the virus coming out of the cell in question. What isn't known about the mechanism?
By the way, antibodies do confer immunity to specific strains of the virus, but the virus changes so often that there's always some version for which you don't have antibodies for. Influenza does something similar as do other viruses.
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by DOlivier2004The point of what I'm saying is that they are not! They are concerned about money(fine its a capatalist society, but the problem is when big business is taking control of the govt(fda) and controling what is happening) The ephedra and amiodarone situations I pointed out show where big business is controling what we the people have access to. That is a problem. The pharm companies will make more money(and they know that) if people stay sick. In the case of AIDS do they want to sell you a cure, or a lifetime of multidrug therapy. The latter is what will be produced, because it is what will make the most money for them. Geez, I am getting tired of remaking this point!
You say that as though it was a bad thing. If drug companies don't make profits, then they go out of business. Less companies out there making drugs. The pace of innovation slows down. Less cures can be developed.
There's a survey that The Economist did about the pharmaceutical industry that was published on June 16, 2005 about the problems tha ...[text shortened]... from_infectious_diseases
I'll probably revise this post once I read the survey this weekend.
11 Nov 05
1 edit
The HIV virus shuffles its genes once every time it copies itself-some 10 billion times a day.
(http://www.aidsinfonyc.org/hivplus/issue1/soc/resistance.html)
They haven't got a cure for the common cold, only medication to help your body recover because it also changes each season and also becomes resistant to whatever medication. Should we be saying that the government / pharmaceutical companies are in a conspiracy to extract money from us every winter?
How about counting the cost of AIDS to our country and culture?
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo. The precise mechanism whereby HIV destroys immune cells in still a matter of surmise. If it did it like any other virus, those cells would be killed quickly, not over the course of 10-15 years.
[b](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);
The mechanism is extremely well established. It destroys the cells of the immunce syst ...[text shortened]... for which you don't have antibodies for. Influenza does something similar as do other viruses.[/b]
Moreover, the co-discoverer of HIV, Montangier, does not believe that HIV on its own is cytotoxic at all. Go figure.
There are many problems with the electron microscope images you mention. First, they do not capture in vivo cell activity; the blebbing is produced in vitro with stimulating agents. Second, there is simply no easy way to visually distinguish HIV from other retroviruses or retroviral-like particles, and hence no certainty that HIV is actually being imaged from the pictures alone. One radical claim is that many of the supposed signs of HIV are artifacts of the culture used, and that the disambiguating control experiments have yet to be performed. I don't know enough to evaluate that claim properly.
Finally, it's not the absence of correct antibodies that is usually claimed to responsible for HIV's pathogenicity; hence, its genetic mutability is irrelevant to its mode of action. Anyway, given that the presence of HIV is overwhelmingly diagnosed by testing for antibodies, if they don't map on to HIV, then there is no evidence of HIV infection in the first place, which is not a claim that experts often make! This only underlines the sheer oddity of HIV: it is supposed to do its damage by a mechanism wholly dissimilar to viruses like the 'flu. Antibodies don't confer protection. Why not? No one knows.
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by caffeineHow are those figures inferred?
The HIV virus shuffles its genes once every time it copies itself-some 10 billion times a day.
(http://www.aidsinfonyc.org/hivplus/issue1/soc/resistance.html)
They haven't got a cure for the common cold, only medication to help your body recover because it also changes each season and also becomes resistant to whatever medication. Should we be saying ...[text shortened]... t money from us every winter?
How about counting the cost of AIDS to our country and culture?
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by helpmespockWell, I simply disagree with you, and I've cited my sources and explained my position based on economic theory (i.e. more money to be gained by the first company that makes a cure or at least a vaccine to prevent HIV infection vs keeping people on drugs). Once I do some more research this weekend, I'll be in a better position to discuss. In short, your arguments aren't persuasive enough for me.
The point of what I'm saying is that they are not! They are concerned about money(fine its a capatalist society, but the problem is when big business is taking control of the govt(fda) and controling what is happening)...
(snip)
...In the case of AIDS do they want to sell you a cure, or a lifetime of multidrug therapy. The latter is what will be p ...[text shortened]... e it is what will make the most money for them. Geez, I am getting tired of remaking this point!
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by DOlivier2004Its not persuasive to me that a cure or vaccine would make more money than a lifetime of drug therapy. Another fact you are not considering is that if you develop a vaccine, in 40-50 years you would be unable to charge anyone for the expensive suppresive therapy, which incidently is typically 3 drugs. Reason being is because you would have removed the disease altogether once all the infected people pass on. Also if a cure were created once the patent runs out and competition ensues the price of that one drug would be driven down. Also of course if a cure were produced there would be considerable pressure politically for the cure to be very affordable, so as to be available to all, and even probably free to those who are poor. The drug companies could argue charging a lot of money for fancy suppresive drugs, but it would be a hard arguement to make a cure expensive. as long as there is no cure, the co. can continue to create new suppressive drugs and market them as better than the old.
Well, I simply disagree with you, and I've cited my sources and explained my position based on economic theory (i.e. more money to be gained by the first company that makes a cure or at least a vaccine to prevent HIV infection vs keeping people on drugs). Once I do some more research this weekend, I'll be in a better position to discuss. In short, your arguments aren't persuasive enough for me.
So this AGAIN is my point. The Drug companies who have become quite powerful in the US have a stronghold on what drugs will be produced here. They will profit less from a comprehensive cure of the disease then they would from a lifetime of multi drug therapy, and therefore are in all likelihood using their considerable influence to suppress the production of a cure.