13 Nov 05
5 edits
I was going to write a longer post, but I need to do a lot of reading and thinking first.
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 mean the latter basically.
Fourth, why, if HIV mutates like crazy, why does it never mutate torwards decreased pathogenicity through some maladaptive mutation?
Well that's simple enough. It does. Why would you think it doesn't? Suppose Adam is infected with HIV, and in his body a less pathogenic variety of HIV evolves. Adam will still die from the more pathogenic variety! He would have both.
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by helpmespockI can completely agree there there is little or no financial benefit for a drug company to cure many illnesses that are now relatively successfully treated with their expensive meds. Countless millions are spent by people on drugs they don't need (vitamins are a good example) or on drugs which would rapidly become unnecesary if the drug companies decided to make a cure or a vaccination for these things.
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.
However, I think it's only a matter of time before a smaller drug company cracks it and finds a cure for AIDS, cancer, the common cold or any of a bunch of nasty diseases.
But it's always better to try and avoid getting a disease in the first place. Eat a healthy well balanced diet, excersize, and practice safe sex! 🙂
16 Nov 05
Originally posted by helpmespockWell I tried to look at it from your POV, but it just keeps looking like so much paranoid delusion.
.... 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.
...
If a large pharmacuetical company does no AIDs research, so what, they're not obligated to. There's a big difference between simply not bothering with research to actually supressing possible cures. Is this what you are suggesting?
Is it only large corps doing this? At what point is a corp large enough for you to suspect them of conspiracy to suppress a cure?
it is difficult to get your ideas marketed in the US.
I doubt this, if you had knowledge of some important step in the development of a cure investors would be knocking your front door down with offers, not all of them would be from US pharma companies (big or small)