Originally posted by DOlivier2004How is a vaccine aginst AIDS going to work? Don't patients already have antibodies?
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.
Originally posted by helpmespockNice point here helpmespock, why invest millions in developing a cure when in all likely hood it will be stolen and by the very people that should be protecting intellectual property rights, better to stick with viagra type drugs eh. This isn't a fault of the drug companies.
Its 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 di ...[text shortened]... e are in all likelihood using their considerable influence to suppress the production of a cure.
The Drug companies who have become quite powerful in the US have a stronghold on what drugs will be produced here.
Stating the obvious, how could it be otherwise, should companies be forced to spend time and money on projects they have no interest in?
The answer is less government, privatise the FDA, those companies that wish to have drugs approved by the FDA would then have to purchase their services. Customers may then choose to purchase FDA approved drugs or take their chances else where. The FDA would have to be seen to be squeaky clean otherwise no companies would bother to get drugs approved by them. Their integrity would be their number one selling point. At the moment there is no choice but to deal with the FDA so what does it matter if their name gets a bit dirtied up.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeWhat do you think of this graph:
No. 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.
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 e ...[text shortened]... issimilar to viruses like the 'flu. Antibodies don't confer protection. Why not? No one knows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hiv-timecourse.png
It shows the relative concentrations of CD4+ lymphocyte cells and HIV RNA copies. There is a clear correlation here.
Finally, it's not the absence of correct antibodies that is usually claimed to responsible for HIV's pathogenicity;
What? That's not true.
As a result of the strong immune defense, the number of viral particles in the blood stream declines and the patient enters clinical latency (Figure 1).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiv#The_clinical_course_of_HIV-1_infection
What aspect of immune response do you think they are referring to?
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!
In the standard model of HIV infection, those antibodies do match on to HIV virus.
The OraQuick Rapid HIV-1 Antibody Test (OraQuick) is a screening test for HIV-1, the virus that causes AIDS. It is a single-use qualitative immunoassay that detects antibodies to HIV-1 in a fingerstick sample of blood.
http://www.fda.gov/cber/faq/oraqckfaq.htm
However, it does not map on to all of the virus present in sufficient amounts to control the infection. The virus is changing constantly so there's always some variety to which the antibodies do not map.
it is supposed to do its damage by a mechanism wholly dissimilar to viruses like the 'flu
Well, they are different types of virus. Influenza is a type V virus (ssRNA => mRNA) while HIV is a retrovirus (type VI - ssRNA => dsDNA => mRNA).
I did some Googling and found this site:
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/docs/47453364-17E9-44B9-9B41-0D4586517718.asp
I also found this:
Infection of CD4+ T cell cultures with HIV is associated with a cytopathic effect of the virus, manifested by ballooning of cells and formation of syncytia leading to cell death by apoptosis of both infected and non-infected cells...Expression of the viral envelope gp120-gp41 complex in infected cells mediates onset of apoptosis of both infected and non-infected cells.
http://www.celldeath.de/encyclo/misc/immunol.htm#AICD
It does seem like the mechanism for destruction of cells is not perfectly understood according to the first link (as least it wasn't in 1999).
However, I disagree that antibodies don't confer protection. They just don't confer complete protection. And, we know why.
If it did it like any other virus, those cells would be killed quickly, not over the course of 10-15 years.
My response is that HIV acts just like many other lentiviruses. HIV is not the 'flu or closely related to the 'flu - it's a lentivirus.
Lentiviruses characteristically establish a persistent infection in the host and cause chronic wasting disorders which are uniformly fatal.
http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/mmi/jmoodie/neurol2.html#Retrovirus%20Disease
A lentivirus is a genus of "slow" viruses of the retroviridae family, characterized by long incubation period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lentivirus
Also check out this page which describes Equine Infectious Anemia, another lentiviral disease in horses. Notice how much similarity there is in how EIA progresses compared to AIDS.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/fs_aheia.html
Originally posted by helpmespockAnother 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
Its 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 di ...[text shortened]... e are in all likelihood using their considerable influence to suppress the production of a cure.
Why would the hypothesized greedy and selfish people in control of a company now care about how the company does in 50 years? Wouldn't it be better for them to find a cure, make a TON of money and become famous heroes now and let the company founder in the future?
Originally posted by helpmespockThere is a cure, the rich that have it are not dying.
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?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo. None of the large corporate powers got that way thinking in the short term.
[b]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
Why would the hypothesized greedy and selfish people in control of a company now care about how the company does in 50 years? Wouldn't it be better for them to find a cure, make a TON of money and become famous heroes now and let the company founder in the future?[/b]
Originally posted by helpmespockHow do you reconcile this idea that companies are selfish and greedy with the idea that CEOs who are 50+ years old will be concerned about the financial future of someone else 50 years from now?
No. None of the large corporate powers got that way thinking in the short term.
Hi AThousandYoung,
What do you think of this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hiv-timecourse.png
It shows the relative concentrations of CD4+ lymphocyte cells and HIV RNA copies. There is a clear correlation here.
That's a theoretical model, not an empirical data set. The reality is a whole lot messier, alas.
Finally, it's not the absence of correct antibodies that is usually claimed to responsible for HIV's pathogenicity.
What? That's not true
Well, that was always the classic puzzle. Why don't the established antibodies confer protection?
However, it does not map on to all of the virus present in sufficient amounts to control the infection. The virus is changing constantly so there's always some variety to which the antibodies do not map.
So, is the problem that there just isn't enough antibody ("in sufficient amounts'😉 or that the antibody isn't the right type, because the virus has changed? I think you mean the latter. Well, that's a possibility, and one currently favored by many researchers. However, there are several problems with the idea.
First, why does it take many years for the virus to start mutating like crazy, after a period of placid dormancy? Second, why are the standard tenets of virology especially rewritten for HIV, which is supposed to multiply like a demon, unlike all the other more sober viruses? Third, is HIV mutates like crazy, can we be sure it is still "really" HIV, or something new? Identification requires constancy. But if HIV constant enough to be identified, why isn't it constant enough to be neutralized by antibodies? Fourth, why, if HIV mutates like crazy, why does it never mutate torwards decreased pathogenicity through some maladaptive mutation?
Maybe HIV is a monstrous, malicious, mutator. The researchers keep finding genetic variations in their cultures. However, no one has shown, and it remains suppositional, that the genetic variation found is actually responsible for the pathogenicity. No one has said what it is about the genetic variation that makes HIV pathogenic. No known mechanism.
Has anyone even found, for example, that infected people try to make new antibodies to HIV, but don't make enough, in the terminal stages of AIDS? That would be more precise evidence for the pathogenic-mutation hypothesis.
it is supposed to do its damage by a mechanism wholly dissimilar to viruses like the 'flu
Well, they are different types of virus. Influenza is a type V virus (ssRNA => mRNA) while HIV is a retrovirus (type VI - ssRNA => dsDNA => mRNA).
I am aware that viruses differ. Most that do damage do damage in the way the 'flu virus does: by replicating rapidly and killing cells quickly. Retroviruses, which are supposed to operate somewhat differently, as a genus are consensually regarded as largely harmless (though see below on lentiviruses). Contrary to the original hypothesis in the 1970s, they didn't turn out to cause any major cancers in humans, and we widely regarded as a research dead end--until AIDS came along.
One implication is that, a priori, it is unlikely that a retorvirus would come along and pathogenic in a wholly new way like HIV. A posteriori, of course, it could be likely. But it isn't an hypothesis you would embrace without meeting a very high standard of proof first. I think that there are serious diagnostic and measurement problems that make it difficult to attain this standard.
I did some Googling and found this site:
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/docs/47453364-17E9-44B9-9B41-0D4586517718.asp
This site supports the claim I made: that the mechanism whereby HIV kills T-cells in currently unknown, a matter of speculation.
As for the lentivirus claims, particularly the interesting horse example you gave, I agree there is a prima facie similarity to some forms of AIDS, and that could provide some analogical support for the hypothesis. However, the same fundamental diagnostic problems that afflict HIV and AIDS affect EIAV and EIA. Rather than pursue these in detail now--tough they are the num of the issue--I want to do a bit of comparative research on EIA first. In the meantime, read this interview, which summarizes a lot of the diagnostic problems in identifying HIV, and perhaps other retroviruses.
http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/hcvft.html
Bests,
Pawno
Originally posted by Wajomaapparently, for you, it wasn't obvious enough!
Nice point here helpmespock, why invest millions in developing a cure when in all likely hood it will be stolen and by the very people that should be protecting intellectual property rights, better to stick with viagra type drugs eh. This isn't a fault of the drug companies.
[b]The Drug companies who have become quite powerful in the US have a stronghold ...[text shortened]... s no choice but to deal with the FDA so what does it matter if their name gets a bit dirtied up.
I am not suggesting that Exxon produce the next AIDS drug. When I said the drug companies have a stronghold.... it was to make the point that unless you are working for them, and their agenda, it is difficult to get your ideas marketed in the US. Believe it or not, there are many people working in the molecular genetics field and microbiology that are not employed by the large corporate drug companies.
I was just trying to point out , at least for other Americans here, how little the manufacturers of most of our prescription meds take your health and well being in to account. Sorry to have tried to warn you all. Go ahead and blindly pay for your ridiculously expensive HTN meds, antibiotics, sex pills, dangerous cholesterol meds, etc. be comforted in the notion that when they finally discover the new wonder drug you are taking is a carcinogen, your survivors will make some dough off the class action suit. And whatever you do...get that cholesterol number down! I don't care if it costs thousands a year....the wonderful drug companies have told us how important that is to our quality of life(never proven in the lit.) And to all of the Americans here who are too young to need Rx meds, don't worry, its just a matter of time. While your waiting to join the crowd, ask yourself "does grandma really need 10 different medications?" ask yourself why (Greeks for example) rarely take any prescription meds, yet they live just as long as us Americans, and are generally happier in their elder years...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungsometimes ceo's think in the short term, its true(enron) but for the most part the companies current AND continued well being is what they get paid to ensure. also there is a lot of nepitism in any billion dollar corporate structure, and often there are generations of family members in the higher positions.
How do you reconcile this idea that companies are selfish and greedy with the idea that CEOs who are 50+ years old will be concerned about the financial future of someone else 50 years from now?
Originally posted by zeeblebotI totally agree with that.
even if we theorize that some companies would rather keep the status quo than cure aids, some other companies, who are not already in on that particular money train, would love to develop an aids cure and secure income from it.