AIDS drugs

As Sinistral said, there is a tremendous amount of research going on for which people are not paid very much money. Academic research does not bring in millions. It is a complicated process to even get a grant to conduct research - and grants, for your information, are usually quite small at least as far as the researcher’s paycheck is concerned. And, since the chances of success are not great and the work is far more difficult than one might fancy, and since even getting to the point where one can have the opportunity to engage in such work is a task very few people are up to, it is very unlikely that they are in it for the glory or money. One usually has to have other motives in mind when one adopts such a profession, since if one cares only for money, there are easier ways to procure it.

As far as the original post is concerned, you either wish to cure the disease or you do not. If you do, then you will fight it by any means you have possible, even if you do not yet have the means to defeat it. You will do so first out of a desire to not give it any ground whatsoever, and secondly out of the practical consideration that a better cure may be found in the time in which you have postponed the effects of the disease. If you don’t, then you shouldn’t even do anything. There is no irony involved. Additionally, those people who are taking AIDS drugs are aware that they have AIDS (that is why they are taking them), which implies that they have at least a small amount of knowledge about it.

Rolling Stone magazine covered the amazing disturbing homosexual subculture of bug-chasers, who actively seek out someone to infect them because they think that someone transmitting the disease to them is extremely erotic/romantic. Freaking weird ass shit.

I used to know a woman who had AIDS. She was pregnant and when she concieved her child, the baby died in a matter of minutes from other germs. She never took any medications. Like it would’ve helped. She was a good friend and will be missed…

I never said it was possible to have a cure-all…
Curing one major disease is something entirely different.
IMO anyways.

Sil, did you read Dan Savage’s column about the bug-chasing article in RS? Just curious.

I can’t speak for other people, but I got into the pharmaceutical industry because (1) I found it interesting from a biological and chemical perspective and (2) I wanted, in some small way, to help make people’s lives a little better. Of course I’d like to be paid decently, which I’m currently not, but I certainly didn’t get into it for money and fame. If I seriously wanted money, I would have been a patent lawyer.

Also, at least from my perspective, we (collectively speaking as pharmaceutical chemists) don’t deliberately pick and choose compounds because they do or don’t cure diseases (therefore affecting profits in whatever way). We do the best we can with what we have so far. If we find something that can cure a disease, that’s super. If we find something that treats it and makes someone’s life a little less painful, we’ll go with it, but that doesn’t mean we stop looking for a cure. I just had to comment.

Heh, supposedly not to long ago pharmacists were making tons of money because there weren’t enough of them… one of those occupations all the qualified professionals weren’t aware of.

Interesting Vicki, but it still doesn’t explain why they don’t drop all that formula copyrights things so those drugs could be made by everyone. Also these drugs are not distributed in places where people can’t pay for them (Africa needs those remedies but africans can’t pay, so…)

also, the people not really educated about AIDS are also likely the people unable to be able to afford the treatments for it, so the correlation between usage of drugs and irresponsibility isn’t quite as strong from the educational perspective.

Yeah, the AIDs epidemic has more or less been curtailed in North America and Europe, the places where these drugs are available to the common man. Besides, I’m sure that the doctors make sure that those people who do have AIDs and who are on AIDS drugs understand the reality of their situation inside and out.

I have, Vicki, and while I in no way believe that 25% of new infections are intentional, it’s a fact that a decent amount of people are into it. And incase you were thinking otherwise I’m not trying to make homosexuals look bad, I do indeed <3 boys myself.

For some reason the bugging thing reminds me of that Onion headline: “Gay Pride Parade turns straight people against homosexuality” :stuck_out_tongue:

As much as I know some people will love to hear it… money. Companies have to make money somehow to pay employees and to continue development of products, and they ensure at least a certain amount through patents for drugs, devices, whatever. After an innovator product goes off patent, you’d be surprised by how quickly and steeply sales can drop for that product due to generics. For example, in Europe, no work of any sort can be performed to develop a generic form of a product currently protected by patents, but that work can be performed in the United States - the day that a drug goes off patent, a generic can already be developed, tested, approved for use, and ready to sell. The generic drug market in Europe is especially interesting (to me, anyway), but those of us in the United States know how much cheaper a generic can be (I’ve seen it with the medicine I take daily).

There’s a lot of debate over how much it costs to bring a drug product to market, but I’m not going to get into it too deeply - people often have their own opinions (unlikely to change with discussion) on how much it costs, and I’m not in the mood for a board debate on that. Needless to say, it costs a lot of money.

I’ll be honest in saying that I don’t have intimate knowledge of how drug products are marketed to other countries, so I can’t answer questions about why they aren’t sent to certain places very well. From what I do know though, companies just can’t offer a product in a country just out of the blue and/or for the sheer hell of it. This is one area in which I had more expertise - give me some time, and I’d probably have learned about it. I wish I could say.

All we will do to avoid the most natrual and certain thing of all for just a couple of seconds more. Aren’t we humans silly?

Originally posted by Silhouette
I have, Vicki, and while I in no way believe that 25% of new infections are intentional, it’s a fact that a decent amount of people are into it. And incase you were thinking otherwise I’m not trying to make homosexuals look bad, I do indeed <3 boys myself.

I wasn’t thinking you were, and I don’t really care what sexual preference you have. I’ve known about yours for a while, since you’ve seemed pretty open about it in chat. I just wondered if you had read it - I read the column, but I don’t read Rolling Stone.


actually i didnt even realize what they were saying about 25% and so on because the article wasnt interspersed with pictures of a very anti-sexy guy.

Vicki brings up a good point: costs. What’s interesting about how much medical crap works is how the costs vary depending on where you go. However, Mexico might have cheaper medecines due to bootlegs (which are probably just as good), but I doubt Canada, for one, has the same potential situation and yet it still costs a lot less than some places in the US (I just mention these 3 regions for discussion purposes, it goes beyond this). Thoughts?

Also, you guys brought up a good point, meds ARE where the educated are since they’re the ones that can afford it (esp Johnson). However, you guys might be interested to know about the strength of the debate to bring cheaper bootleg equivs to African countries heavily smacked by AIDS, and that’s a very real possibility.

(and I’m not taking a stance here, just poking at the discussion to steer it along)

Another circumstance that involves greater costs is regulation. For a drug to be approved by the FDA for ONE purpose in the US, it has to undergo all sorts of tests to assure compliance with this, that, and the other and to have the information that the FDA requires for review. If a company would like to market a drug for an additional purpose, it has to jump through a lot of the loops again for that application.

One thing to add is that the US is the hardest place in the world for a drug to get approval for use due to the amount of regulations and laws in place to assure patient safety. Once a drug is approved by the FDA, it’s pretty easy for companies to have it approved for use by other nations’ councils on such things.

that doesn’t have anything to do with Canada’s cheapness. At that point, the FDA’s regulatory crap is done with, isn’t it?
Also, why wouldn’t the company spread the cost everywhere instead of concentrating it in key areas?

canadia’s drugs are cheaper because their health system is paid for essentially by taxes. It’s also a big part of the reason why their economy has tanked.

I think I’ll get back to this tomorrow - the muscle relaxer is working a little too well right now. Wheeeeeee…

edit - Sin, could you please elaborate on your two most recent posts? (like who regulates price where, who needs to do it, what’s not entirely true in your opinion, what about spreading costs) I just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying when I come back clearheaded. :stuck_out_tongue: