Indian doc develops enzyme that can destroy HIV

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

No, drug development doesn't have a "fast track" that I'm aware of. First, there is all the preclinical tests (which I think is where this thing is just starting). Then there are three major steps in clinical trials and each step can take years. Finally, there must be all the approvals from all the big agencies like FDA. All this is also at the mercy of the company that is manufacturing as well. Unfortunately, most people that need an HIV drug can't easily afford it. Even if a drug is made a huge priority I would still expect it to take at least 10 years assuming it passes all tests.

http://idid.essortment.com/fdadrugapprova_rrgy.htm

The process of developing and testing a new drug is a lengthy one. The FDA estimates that it takes a little over 8 years to test a drug, including early laboratory and animal testing, before there is final approval for use by the general public. Various efforts, however, are underway to reduce the approval time.

However when it comes to promising experimental drugs........

Eight years is a long time to review a drug. Some patients, especially terminally ill patients, don't particularly care if the drug meets high standards of safety. They don't have the time. Taking any drug, in their view, is better than the alternative. So today's policies also allow some investigational drugs even before they are approved for marketing.

These new policies called "expanded access" protocols include the Treatment Investigational New Drug (IND) application and the parallel track mechanism. Both tracks allow promising drugs, not yet approved for marketing, to be used in moderately unrestricted studies where the intent is not only to learn more about the drug, especially about its safety, but also to provide treatment for people with no real alternative. But these expanded access protocols still require clinical researchers to formally investigate the drug in well-controlled studies and to supply some evidence that the drug is likely to be helpful.

[Juventus3]

Is it crazy to think some company will buy out the patent and make it widely unavailable?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Or the people in those poor African countries could take personal responsibility for their actions and stop humping everything that moves.

MYK

Their governments aren't exactly helping the situation by telling them that condoms can cause disease and are a sin. Saying AIDS can be cured by having unprotected sex with a virgin or eating potatoes. Lots of misinformation out there.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Their governments aren't exactly helping the situation by telling them that condoms can cause disease and are a sin. Saying AIDS can be cured by having unprotected sex with a virgin or eating potatoes. Lots of misinformation out there.

Or the Catholic Church itself.....

http://www.cathtelecom.com/news/310/53.php

Catholic leaders in Africa have pledged to step up their involvement in the fight against the AIDS pandemic, while continuing to reject the use of condoms to fight the disease.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story...059068,00.html

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.

The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

[Berger_4_]

well, time for me to throw my hat into the ring...i'm probably gonna piss some people off with this but whatever...

I don't think it should be developed. Simple as that. AIDS/HIV, cancer, all of those "incurable" diseases are incurable for a reason, the same as why war can actually be a good thing. It helps control our population. If it wasn't for AIDS, how many people would be living in Africa right now? If it wasn't for cancer, or whatever other diseases/ailments that we can't cure 100 percent of the time, how big would our populations be now? If the air wasn't below acceptable standards in China, how many billions more people would be populatig that area?

Now I know they're horrible diseases, but I don't think we need to advance medicine any more than we are at now. Even now, populations are rapidly increasing. Why let them grow at a faster rate? The diseases we have now are here for a reason, just like there is only enough food to support so many deer, or people for that matter. It prevents us from over-populating and wiping ourselves out.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Berger_4_

well, time for me to throw my hat into the ring...i'm probably gonna piss some people off with this but whatever...

It's nice that you get to pronounce judgement on others from a position of not being at risk. Unless you yourself would refuse treatment for anything that happened to you (to remain consistent).

And just because something has an effect that you are looking for (decrease the population) doesn't mean that that thing actually happens "for a reason". That implies that wars and AIDS were created by an external entity for the purpose of reducing the population.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

Is it crazy to think some company will buy out the patent and make it widely unavailable?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself, but while morally questionable this isnt entirely unheard of.

Actually, in the words of Douglas Adams, many people believe this has already happened once concerning HIV.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself, but while morally questionable this isnt entirely unheard of.

Actually, in the words of Douglas Adams, many people believe this has already happened once concerning HIV.

Rich people don't die from HIV. Uh, Magic Johnson anyone?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Rich people don't die from HIV. Uh, Magic Johnson anyone?

I didnt think Magic Johnson was dead? I dont really follow basketball so I might be totally out of the loop.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Locke

I didnt think Magic Johnson was dead? I dont really follow basketball so I might be totally out of the loop.

Oh no no, I meant MJ helps prove my point that rich people don't die from HIV. Call me a conspiracy nut or whatever, but I think there really is a way to keep HIV dormant. It probably just costs a lot of money.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Oh no no, I meant MJ helps prove my point that rich people don't die from HIV. Call me a conspiracy nut or whatever, but I think there really is a way to keep HIV dormant. It probably just costs a lot of money.

Okay yeah, I mixed up your comment. Again, conspiracy tendencies aside, there is alot of belief that this has already happened and that a large pharmaceutical firm has covered it up.

The idea behind this stems from the fact that they could be pressured by the international community to give it up and basically heal africa on the cheap. They dont feel there is enough money in that so they arent doing anything at all with it until the right opportunity presents itself.

As for rich people buying their way out of death, I cant speak to that.

Again, there is circumstancial conjectural basis for this theory, but no proof of any kind that I know of.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay yeah, I mixed up your comment. Again, conspiracy tendencies aside, there is alot of belief that this has already happened and that a large pharmaceutical firm has covered it up.

The idea behind this stems from the fact that they could be pressured by the international community to give it up and basically heal africa on the cheap. They dont feel there is enough money in that so they arent doing anything at all with it until the right opportunity presents itself.

As for rich people buying their way out of death, I cant speak to that.

Again, there is circumstancial conjectural basis for this theory, but no proof of any kind that I know of.

I seriously doubt any of these things. I think this is just needless tarring and feathering of Drug companies by the usual socialist suspects. People really can't have it both ways; cheap drugs and new continual advances in medicine. It seems rather morbid to consider that companies profit from the suffering of others however it beats the alternative in that people just suffer without any hope for new drugs.

[atb]

Originally Posted by Berger_4_

well, time for me to throw my hat into the ring...i'm probably gonna piss some people off with this but whatever...

I don't think it should be developed. Simple as that. AIDS/HIV, cancer, all of those "incurable" diseases are incurable for a reason, the same as why war can actually be a good thing. It helps control our population. If it wasn't for AIDS, how many people would be living in Africa right now? If it wasn't for cancer, or whatever other diseases/ailments that we can't cure 100 percent of the time, how big would our populations be now? If the air wasn't below acceptable standards in China, how many billions more people would be populatig that area?

Now I know they're horrible diseases, but I don't think we need to advance medicine any more than we are at now. Even now, populations are rapidly increasing. Why let them grow at a faster rate? The diseases we have now are here for a reason, just like there is only enough food to support so many deer, or people for that matter. It prevents us from over-populating and wiping ourselves out.

oh wow

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I seriously doubt any of these things. I think this is just needless tarring and feathering of Drug companies by the usual socialist suspects. People really can't have it both ways; cheap drugs and new continual advances in medicine. It seems rather morbid to consider that companies profit from the suffering of others however it beats the alternative in that people just suffer without any hope for new drugs.

Thanks for pigeon-holeing me immediately with a stereotypical label. I havent taken any sides if you've noticed, I've simply expressed a little known belief.

Think about it this way. How is any drug company going to stand in the public eye and say:

"Yes, we have a cure, but its going to cost $20K per person to cover our R&D costs, marketing and then meet our shareholder profit expectations."

Your average HIV infected African citizen cant afford that. The African government cant afford that. Most international organizations cant afford that.

Who do you figure is going to pick up the tab, especially considering that part of the money goes straight into the coffers of a private company and is used to buy jets and cars and malibu mansions. No aid organization can do that when there is a profit being made at one end, as a non-profit organization cannot justify expenses that result in another organization's profit, its not considered efficient and would never be approved.

Its a sticky grey area for all involved. I do agree with you though in the thought that profit has to be made in order to continue medical advances. But as it approaches situations like this it becomes a quandry where money is exchanged for continued life.

You can see the dilemma.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Locke

Thanks for pigeon-holeing me immediately with a stereotypical label. I havent taken any sides if you've noticed, I've simply expressed a little known belief.

Think about it this way. How is any drug company going to stand in the public eye and say:

"Yes, we have a cure, but its going to cost $20K per person to cover our R&D costs, marketing and then meet our shareholder profit expectations."

Your average HIV infected African citizen cant afford that. The African government cant afford that. Most international organizations cant afford that.

Who do you figure is going to pick up the tab, especially considering that part of the money goes straight into the coffers of a private company and is used to buy jets and cars and malibu mansions. No aid organization can do that when there is a profit being made at one end, as a non-profit organization cannot justify expenses that result in another organization's profit, its not considered efficient and would never be approved.

Its a sticky grey area for all involved. I do agree with you though in the thought that profit has to be made in order to continue medical advances. But as it approaches situations like this it becomes a quandry where money is exchanged for continued life.

You can see the dilemma.

I meant my comment towards the theory not you in particular. I was offering up my belief with regards to that theory. I didn't think I signalled you out as even believing in that. My apologies if it came out the wrong way.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I meant my comment towards the theory not you in particular. I was offering up my belief with regards to that theory. I didn't think I signalled you out as even believing in that. My apologies if it came out the wrong way.

No worries. It is an off-the-wall theory, no questions about it.

Its all good.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Locke

"Yes, we have a cure, but its going to cost $20K per person to cover our R&D costs, marketing and then meet our shareholder profit expectations."

I don't think it'll be marketed that way anyway. I think due to this fact it's effectiveness will be downplayed and it'll be advertised as a new treatment like any other. Once word gets out amoung the medical community that in some cases it actually cures people, the demand will increase. By the time it's known to be the de facto 'magic cure' they will have already recouped expenses and made a tidy profit. With regards to the 'efficiency' arguement: Not having the drug in any case is more inefficient than having the drug sold for thousands a treatment and having a few execs and doctors living in Malibu.

[feartheflames]

if this pans out this woman has saved countless lives...

[Berger_4_]

Originally Posted by photon

It's nice that you get to pronounce judgement on others from a position of not being at risk. Unless you yourself would refuse treatment for anything that happened to you (to remain consistent).

And just because something has an effect that you are looking for (decrease the population) doesn't mean that that thing actually happens "for a reason". That implies that wars and AIDS were created by an external entity for the purpose of reducing the population.

If there was a cure now, no I wouldn't refuse treatment. If I developed a cancerous tumor, I wouldn't refuse treatment. Nobody would. But why continue to try to find cures for every disease imaginable? So our population can slowly starve to death? Our population is growing fast enough as it is, we don't need to save any more lives.

[blankall]

I spent a year working in a molecular genetics lab, and unless there is something here besides what I am reading, there is no way this enzyme in itself would cure HIV. The tricky part would be a delivery system into every cell in the body allowing it to access the HIV. Even then it is unlikely you would be able to get it all, forcing the user to constantly take these drugs. The trick would be to make the enzyme fit the virus in a way that would stop it from mutating into a viable strain that would avoid the enzyme.

As for why MJ is still alive. Yes we already have drugs that supress HIV and yes they are very expensive. They don't supress the virus indefinately and some of the side effects are quite severe. Recently the largest drug companies have all agreed to not enforce patents in Africa, however. Of course this makes little difference. People there are dying of diseases curable by common antibiotics or clean water..... now try getting them complex drug therapies.