Cure for Aids?

[buffettbride]

This is what I do know about pharmaceutical companies... The disease my daughter has, Celiac Disease, has no medicinal treatment. It is treatable only through a lifelong commitment to a gluten-free diet. By not following the diet, sufferers end up with all sorts of acute symptoms such as diarrhea, malnutrition, malabsorption, severe stomach cramps, ADD-like symptoms, muscle cramps, headaches, sinus infections, etc. A single accidental "glutening" can cause these symptoms and they last for days, sometimes weeks.

Most sufferers also follow the diet pretty strictly, because it is entirely unpleasant to endure these symptoms day to day.

There is currently a medication in Phase II trials to help eliminate the absorption of gluten if it is ingested, so it does not cause symptoms or damage to the stomach or small intestine. The medication has been tested with participants who take the gluten-blocker pill about one hour before ingesting a gluten-containing pill.

Although the company insists it is not a pill for sufferers of Celiac Disease to use as a means to eat a "normal" gluten-containing diet, I wonder why the focus hasn't been providing a solution to the accidental ingestion of gluten which means the pill would be taken AFTER gluten is eaten.

Since my daughter will be an adult age (in 8 years) before the pill is even approved for children, I figure it will be her choice at that point if she wants to take the medication and if so, I truly hope she adheres to the only proven (and no-side effect) treatment, which is the gluten-free diet. Also by that time, I'd hope if there are any not-so-good side effects from the medication that those would be discovered by that time.

To me it is a case of finding a marketing niche (by the pharm ccompanies) rather than having the best interest of the patient in mind--especially when most doctors barely understand this disease!

[Lightning Bolt]

There will be a cure one day.

sadly, it just seems like it keeps getting pushed down the ladder,
that is, until someone FAMOUS either turns up HIV positive or dies.

Freddy Mercury of Queen
Chuck Panazzo of Styx
Rock Hudson
Anthony Perkins
Robert Reed
Greg Louganis (living HIV positive)
Magic Johnson (living HIV positive)

thats just a few....

good point
I should re-state that as ANOTHER someone famous inside the U.S.'s myopic focus of celebrity.

Large percentages of populations dying in Africa don't even seem to make a blip on the screen

[OystersandBeer]

There will be a cure one day.

sadly, it just seems like it keeps getting pushed down the ladder,
that is, until someone FAMOUS either turns up HIV positive or dies.

Freddy Mercury of Queen
Chuck Panazzo of Styx
Rock Hudson
Anthony Perkins
Robert Reed
Greg Louganis (living HIV positive)
Magic Johnson (living HIV positive)

thats just a few....

You forgot Easy E.

[drunkpirate66]

Magic Johnson is proof that money can buy health.

yeah and with a name like Magic Johnson

yeah I know........groan

must be a monday morning thing . . . I found it funny.

[KeetAtHeart]

Unfortunately there is no cure for AIDS, nor is there a cure-all or vaccine that is likely to work any time in the next 10 years. The AIDS virus is very tricky, and nearly impossible to kill without also killing the host cells of the immune system.

I've worked in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry for 20 years, including 10 years trying to develop an HIV vaccine. Believe me, if there were a cure for AIDS, a pharmaceutical company would jump on it!

Many of the criticisms in this thread are correct, but some are unfounded. A pharmaceutical company is a business, and just like any other business, its purpose is to make money for its stockholders. That's just the ugly reality of capitalism. People like to hold drug companies to a higher standard than other businesses. Why don't we hear people criticizing the automobile industry for not making cars affordable for everyone?

That said, I agree that pharmaceutical companies may pretend to be altruistic as a marketing ploy. There's some truth to it; most of the individuals in the industry are there because they want to help people. But business is business, so it's also true that drug companies don't like to develop vaccines because they aren't big moneymakers.

One area where critics contradict themselves: they complain about how much drugs cost, and in the same breath, complain that there are too many unsafe drugs pushed onto the market. There are many, many checks and balances in place to keep unsafe and ineffective drugs off the market, which means that it takes many years and hundreds of millions of research dollars to develop a new medicine. The system is not perfect; not all side effects are caught during clinical trials, and there may be side effects that aren't obvious until the drug is on the market. Admittedly, there are also a few bad apples who hide negative results, but for the most part, a drug company will just stop developing something that looks at all unsafe (see "making money" above).

Yes, I'm biased, and I benefit directly from the high cost that you pay for your medicines. I also know from the inside how selfish and evil a pharmaceutical company can be, and I don't mean to make them sound innocent - they're not. But for the most part, our bureaucratic, bloated system of drug development works pretty well. Ask your grandparents if their healthcare was anything like ours today.

[msu#1]

There's tons of articles out there on why the "pink ribbon" campaign is a big scam.

Breast Cancer gets more money than almost any other disease and they are no closer to a cure than they were in the 60's.

The reason behind all these companies putting pink ribbons on things- it makes people think boobies, then they think sex and sex sells. There is a documentary on the whole thing, I saw clip of it on Penn's hbo show or something like that.

[ph4ever]

Unfortunately there is no cure for AIDS, nor is there a cure-all or vaccine that is likely to work any time in the next 10 years. The AIDS virus is very tricky, and nearly impossible to kill without also killing the host cells of the immune system.

I've worked in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry for 20 years, including 10 years trying to develop an HIV vaccine. Believe me, if there were a cure for AIDS, a pharmaceutical company would jump on it!

Many of the criticisms in this thread are correct, but some are unfounded. A pharmaceutical company is a business, and just like any other business, its purpose is to make money for its stockholders. That's just the ugly reality of capitalism. People like to hold drug companies to a higher standard than other businesses. Why don't we hear people criticizing the automobile industry for not making cars affordable for everyone?

That said, I agree that pharmaceutical companies may pretend to be altruistic as a marketing ploy. There's some truth to it; most of the individuals in the industry are there because they want to help people. But business is business, so it's also true that drug companies don't like to develop vaccines because they aren't big moneymakers.

One area where critics contradict themselves: they complain about how much drugs cost, and in the same breath, complain that there are too many unsafe drugs pushed onto the market. There are many, many checks and balances in place to keep unsafe and ineffective drugs off the market, which means that it takes many years and hundreds of millions of research dollars to develop a new medicine. The system is not perfect; not all side effects are caught during clinical trials, and there may be side effects that aren't obvious until the drug is on the market. Admittedly, there are also a few bad apples who hide negative results, but for the most part, a drug company will just stop developing something that looks at all unsafe (see "making money" above).

Yes, I'm biased, and I benefit directly from the high cost that you pay for your medicines. I also know from the inside how selfish and evil a pharmaceutical company can be, and I don't mean to make them sound innocent - they're not. But for the most part, our bureaucratic, bloated system of drug development works pretty well. Ask your grandparents if their healthcare was anything like ours today.

My grandparents didn't face the kind of disease and illnesses we are facing now either.

I have problems when I'm watching CNN and every commercial break I'm seeing a drug commercial, Now I know they're doing what's allowed within the law, so I have a problem with the government allowing that. I have a problem knowing that in some cases the exact same meds - same formula can be obtained in other parts of the world for much less. Why is that? I seriously would like to know. Am I paying for the research or the commercials with my higher med prices? Cause if it's the commercials then I want to hound my representatives to get it outlawed. If it's the research, well right now it needs to be a little more evenly distributed and Americans not shouldering the brunt of the cost.

Back in Sept I saw a piece on a news magazine show (can't remember which we were in a hotel and it could have been local news for that matter) about the safety of new medicines and how the FDA has something like 300 "overseers" (or whatever the people that are over the trials are called) to oversee something like 380,000 clinical trials. If that's the case then well there's another thing the government could spend money on instead of some of the waste that goes on.

I dunno - I guess I'm still of the thought that the medical profession, including the pharmacy industry, should be a little more compassionate and less profit oriented. The way it used to be. When I know of people that can't get treatments they need because they can't afford the medicines or they have to wait a while and jump thru hoops to get treatment assistance or they still have to pay over $ 700. a month with insurance it make me feel our country has got it's priorities all screwed up. I don't have an answer either. I just know the USA used to be known as a compassionate, caring country - very humanitarian and respected as a nation and a people. Now we're not even humanitarian towards our own people and we're either hated or the laughing stock of the world.

[Mr Play]

Interesting topic. IMO KeetAtHeart is on the money, especially with the parts about research expense and how difficult the cure is without killing the host. I do think a cure will come, but it's going to take a lot more time and money. Unfortunately that means a lot more people are going to die.

Maybe it would help to extend the patent protection for "cure drugs" longer than for "treatment drugs". Say 25 years instead of 17 or whatever it is now. The extra patent protection would generate even more revenue for cures, and that would motivate the companies to invest in more research.

For those who don't think pharmaceutical companies are interested in funding cures. How do you explain the development of anti-rejection drugs and how they help transplant recipients accept donor tissue as their own? What about Surfactin which is a synthetic lubricant for newborns whose lungs aren't fully developed?

[ph4ever]

Interesting topic. IMO KeetAtHeart is on the money, especially with the parts about research expense and how difficult the cure is without killing the host. I do think a cure will come, but it's going to take a lot more time and money. Unfortunately that means a lot more people are going to die.

Maybe it would help to extend the patent protection for "cure drugs" longer than for "treatment drugs". Say 25 years instead of 17 or whatever it is now. The extra patent protection would generate even more revenue for cures, and that would motivate the companies to invest in more research.

For those who don't think pharmaceutical companies are interested in funding cures. How do you explain the development of anti-rejection drugs and how they help transplant recipients accept donor tissue as their own? What about Surfactin which is a synthetic lubricant for newborns whose lungs aren't fully developed?

Two things I wonder about the freeze

1 don't you think that by freezing the patent protection you'll delay the ability for generic drugs thereby making necessary meds harder to obtain for those less fortunate?

2. Could the freeze delay development of better "cures" for example with HCV the current therapy is called "the cure" yet it only "works" for 1/2 those that successfully complete their prescribed treatment. The current treatment can leave one with devastating long term sides such as Rheumatoid Arthritis. Some of the treatments currently in clinical trials are actually a combination of the 2 meds now the treatment standard plus others added with hopes for elimination of sides and higher success on the hard to treat genotypes.

[Mr Play]

1. Yes I would expect the extended protection to delay generics, that's the point. First you find a cure, then you worry about how to make it available.

2. I'm not sure I see how the freeze would delay better cures, but to your other point I would argue there is no such thing as 100 percent in medicine. There is always going to be risk, especially when you're talking about cures.

[KeetAtHeart]

My grandparents didn't face the kind of disease and illnesses we are facing now either.

I have problems when I'm watching CNN and every commercial break I'm seeing a drug commercial, Now I know they're doing what's allowed within the law, so I have a problem with the government allowing that. I have a problem knowing that in some cases the exact same meds - same formula can be obtained in other parts of the world for much less. Why is that? I seriously would like to know. Am I paying for the research or the commercials with my higher med prices? Cause if it's the commercials then I want to hound my representatives to get it outlawed. If it's the research, well right now it needs to be a little more evenly distributed and Americans not shouldering the brunt of the cost.

Back in Sept I saw a piece on a news magazine show (can't remember which we were in a hotel and it could have been local news for that matter) about the safety of new medicines and how the FDA has something like 300 "overseers" (or whatever the people that are over the trials are called) to oversee something like 380,000 clinical trials. If that's the case then well there's another thing the government could spend money on instead of some of the waste that goes on.

I dunno - I guess I'm still of the thought that the medical profession, including the pharmacy industry, should be a little more compassionate and less profit oriented. The way it used to be. When I know of people that can't get treatments they need because they can't afford the medicines or they have to wait a while and jump thru hoops to get treatment assistance or they still have to pay over $ 700. a month with insurance it make me feel our country has got it's priorities all screwed up. I don't have an answer either. I just know the USA used to be known as a compassionate, caring country - very humanitarian and respected as a nation and a people. Now we're not even humanitarian towards our own people and we're either hated or the laughing stock of the world.

Whew! I was hesitant to check back in, expecting to be flamed... Thank you all for your respectful and well-considered responses!

Ph4ever, yes you are paying for the commercials and the research. The commercials help sell the drugs, which helps pay for more research (as well as lining the executives' pockets). And yes, drug companies charge more in the US, just because they can. Simple economics - same reason my local gas station charges more than the one near my mom's house. For example, AIDS can't be cured, but it can be controlled in most cases. In the US and Europe it's now a chronic, manageable disease. In the rest of the world, it's uniformly fatal, just because they can't afford the treatment. That's an economic failure, not a scientific one.

I, too, wish that the healthcare industry was more compassionate and less profit-oriented. Even doctors are now controlled by the culture of the corporation - it's a completely different job than it was 15-20 years ago. I also agree that our country has done a lousy job at caring for its own. Other countries have single payer/socialized medicine systems that work pretty well , and I don't know why the US can't seem to learn from them. However, even in those places, those who can afford it can buy better health care.

You're also right that the FDA is grossly understaffed and overly bureaucratic, which makes it even more amazing how well they do what they do! Surprisingly, you'll find some of the most compassionate individuals at the FDA --people willing to work hard for meager pay and struggle with huge amounts of red tape and political pressure, just because they truly believe in protecting people and helping to relieve suffering by bringing good medicines to market.

As for patent protections, it comes down to the same issue: the profit motive is what drives drug development. If there's no profit in making a better cure or a new drug, then it's not likely to ever be developed. And if it's never developed, people can't get access to it, whether it's cheap or not.

I guess the bottom line is that there needs to be a balance between the profit motive and compassionate access for all. Without profit, science stagnates. Without compassion, people suffer and die.

[Clintster7]

(most of them only make about $150,00 a year)




I wish I only made $150,00 a year. Hell I wish I made that in 3 or 4 years.

[ph4ever]

My grandparents didn't face the kind of disease and illnesses we are facing now either.

I have problems when I'm watching CNN and every commercial break I'm seeing a drug commercial, Now I know they're doing what's allowed within the law, so I have a problem with the government allowing that. I have a problem knowing that in some cases the exact same meds - same formula can be obtained in other parts of the world for much less. Why is that? I seriously would like to know. Am I paying for the research or the commercials with my higher med prices? Cause if it's the commercials then I want to hound my representatives to get it outlawed. If it's the research, well right now it needs to be a little more evenly distributed and Americans not shouldering the brunt of the cost.

Back in Sept I saw a piece on a news magazine show (can't remember which we were in a hotel and it could have been local news for that matter) about the safety of new medicines and how the FDA has something like 300 "overseers" (or whatever the people that are over the trials are called) to oversee something like 380,000 clinical trials. If that's the case then well there's another thing the government could spend money on instead of some of the waste that goes on.

I dunno - I guess I'm still of the thought that the medical profession, including the pharmacy industry, should be a little more compassionate and less profit oriented. The way it used to be. When I know of people that can't get treatments they need because they can't afford the medicines or they have to wait a while and jump thru hoops to get treatment assistance or they still have to pay over $ 700. a month with insurance it make me feel our country has got it's priorities all screwed up. I don't have an answer either. I just know the USA used to be known as a compassionate, caring country - very humanitarian and respected as a nation and a people. Now we're not even humanitarian towards our own people and we're either hated or the laughing stock of the world.

Whew! I was hesitant to check back in, expecting to be flamed... Thank you all for your respectful and well-considered responses!

Ph4ever, yes you are paying for the commercials and the research. The commercials help sell the drugs, which helps pay for more research (as well as lining the executives' pockets). And yes, drug companies charge more in the US, just because they can. Simple economics - same reason my local gas station charges more than the one near my mom's house. For example, AIDS can't be cured, but it can be controlled in most cases. In the US and Europe it's now a chronic, manageable disease. In the rest of the world, it's uniformly fatal, just because they can't afford the treatment. That's an economic failure, not a scientific one.

I, too, wish that the healthcare industry was more compassionate and less profit-oriented. Even doctors are now controlled by the culture of the corporation - it's a completely different job than it was 15-20 years ago. I also agree that our country has done a lousy job at caring for its own. Other countries have single payer/socialized medicine systems that work pretty well , and I don't know why the US can't seem to learn from them. However, even in those places, those who can afford it can buy better health care.

You're also right that the FDA is grossly understaffed and overly bureaucratic, which makes it even more amazing how well they do what they do! Surprisingly, you'll find some of the most compassionate individuals at the FDA --people willing to work hard for meager pay and struggle with huge amounts of red tape and political pressure, just because they truly believe in protecting people and helping to relieve suffering by bringing good medicines to market.

As for patent protections, it comes down to the same issue: the profit motive is what drives drug development. If there's no profit in making a better cure or a new drug, then it's not likely to ever be developed. And if it's never developed, people can't get access to it, whether it's cheap or not.

I guess the bottom line is that there needs to be a balance between the profit motive and compassionate access for all. Without profit, science stagnates. Without compassion, people suffer and die.

Thanks for your response. The only thing I can comment on is the commercials selling the drugs. Commercials should not sell a prescription medicine. The medicine's effectiveness with sides as minimal as possible should sell the medicine.

I can't speak for all clinical trials but I find the ones that I'm watching the initial research for quite a number of the trials came out of countries other than the US. The announcements of strides and breakthroughs aren't coming from the US research teams. Not that US companies aren't involved, because many times it's a joint research venture type thing. I find it interesting and wonder if it's any indication of a shift in medical care and research. For a long time the US was kinda the "big dog" so to speak.

[KeetAtHeart]

I can't speak for all clinical trials but I find the ones that I'm watching the initial research for quite a number of the trials came out of countries other than the US. The announcements of strides and breakthroughs aren't coming from the US research teams. Not that US companies aren't involved, because many times it's a joint research venture type thing. I find it interesting and wonder if it's any indication of a shift in medical care and research. For a long time the US was kinda the "big dog" so to speak.

I have the same perception, and I think it may be a result of globalization in general, rather than the US falling behind specifically in the drug industry. Big pharma companies have merged so much, it's hard to know who's really in charge. Also, a lot of US companies run their trials in other countries (because it's cheaper - big surprise!). On the other hand, US priorities shift around so much; if you're watching trials for an "unpopular" or "unglamorous" disease (like HCV, I guess), I wouldn't be surprised that more work is going on in places where they have a more balanced view of what's important. Watching the rise and fall of HIV politics/research has been fascinating, in a rather soul-sickening way.

Guess I've gotten a little cynical after all these years in the industry!

[Skibo]

I can't speak for all clinical trials but I find the ones that I'm watching the initial research for quite a number of the trials came out of countries other than the US. The announcements of strides and breakthroughs aren't coming from the US research teams. Not that US companies aren't involved, because many times it's a joint research venture type thing. I find it interesting and wonder if it's any indication of a shift in medical care and research. For a long time the US was kinda the "big dog" so to speak.

I have the same perception, and I think it may be a result of globalization in general, rather than the US falling behind specifically in the drug industry. Big pharma companies have merged so much, it's hard to know who's really in charge. Also, a lot of US companies run their trials in other countries (because it's cheaper - big surprise!). On the other hand, US priorities shift around so much; if you're watching trials for an "unpopular" or "unglamorous" disease (like HCV, I guess), I wouldn't be surprised that more work is going on in places where they have a more balanced view of what's important. Watching the rise and fall of HIV politics/research has been fascinating, in a rather soul-sickening way.

Guess I've gotten a little cynical after all these years in the industry!

Could it be that the other countries are getting the credit is because their regulations are not as strict? There are a lot of drugs and procedures going through the FDA approval process that are being used elsewhere.

[KeetAtHeart]

Could it be that the other countries are getting the credit is because their regulations are not as strict? There are a lot of drugs and procedures going through the FDA approval process that are being used elsewhere.

True - that's one of the reasons it's cheaper to do clinical trials outside the US. But I thought he was talking about companies in other countries, not just getting "FDA" approval in other countries.

[ph4ever]

Could it be that the other countries are getting the credit is because their regulations are not as strict? There are a lot of drugs and procedures going through the FDA approval process that are being used elsewhere.

True - that's one of the reasons it's cheaper to do clinical trials outside the US. But I thought he was talking about companies in other countries, not just getting "FDA" approval in other countries.

With HCV - the standard of treatment right now is the same worldwide. A undetectable level for 6 months after treatment elevates one to a SVR (sustained virological response) which is what all HCV positive people wish to achieve. I'm sure with other diseases you have other "markers" that you strive to achieve during your treatment. So if a better treatment is found overseas it really doesn't matter - the pressure for the FDA to approve will be there. It's not unusual for a drug to be in use "overseas" before it's available in the US market. Considering the drug manufacturers pretty much call the shots in the FDA, and they are now partnered with the "overseas" companies, you can pretty much rest assured that any drug or vaccine developed overseas will be approved here.

Keet - why would a branch of the US Department of Health and Human Services approve drugs out of this country? Think about it...

oh and it's she, not he

[moeron]

Money is at the root. 60 Minutes did a story about sleeping sickness in Africa. I think it was Brystol Mayers had a drug that would combat the effects of sleeping sickness, but they would not let them use it because it costs $ 1 or 2 per dose. No money in helping poor black people on the far side. So they didn't. Later it was reported that the same drug helped swelling or a side effect from cosmetic surgery. At $ 15. per pill, they started giving it away to Africa. Since they were making tons of money in the US. They could use the tax writeoff. I think that they make more money treating the diseases than curing it. Aslo I think that ignorance plays a part. Look at the HPV vaccine. Some BONEHEADS have said "That just gives my child an okay to have sex" Ignorance. If they have a vaccine to cure long cancer, would some people say that gives people a reason to start smoking? Sorry I am just rambling on.