Question concerning AIDs cure...

[Orsorum]

Just a hypothetical... if a drug were developed that could quickly and easily cure the AIDs virus, and act as a vaccine, but it were very expensive to produce... do you think the US government (or EU, or UN, or whoever) would allow a private company (if the private company paid for the R&D) to distribute it?

Along the same lines as free vaccination clinics, etc... in the interests of public health, would the government allow capitalistic economics to enter into the situation? Or would the gov't buy or steal the cure from the company and distribute it freely to the population?

 

[amnesiac]

That's a really good question. I would think that early on while it was expensive and limited, capitalism would reign, but as soon as it progressed to the point of being affordable or duplicated by more companies it could become a cure for the masses. If such a thing did become available I wouldn't doubt that a worldwide effort of immunization / curing would be underway.. sort of like the eradication of Smallpox.

Then, in 30 years, when it's all said and done, a new, more deadly virus will appear because God hates us.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: amnesiac 2.0
That's a really good question. I would think that early on while it was expensive and limited, capitalism would reign, but as soon as it progressed to the point of being affordable or duplicated by more companies it could become a cure for the masses. If such a thing did become available I wouldn't doubt that a worldwide effort of immunization / curing would be underway.. sort of like the eradication of Smallpox.

Then, in 30 years, when it's all said and done, a new, more deadly virus will appear because God hates us.

..or some dumbass lab-intern drops a vat of something and....

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: amnesiac 2.0

Then, in 30 years, when it's all said and done, a new, more deadly virus will appear because God hates us.

lol Apparently...

 

[Orsorum]

I mean, is there any sort of precedent for this?

 

[XZeroII]

What will most likely happen is that it will sit in testing for about 5-6 years. After that time, if no more than 2 people die (doesn't even have to be from the vaccine) then it will be distributed quietly to the wealthy and people who will pay tons of money for it. After they have been milked, there will be a big announcement and they will announce that supplies are limited and it will cost a lot of money. After a few years, the price will come down slowly. Of course the cure will not be one shot or anything, it will take years and many injections and return visits to the hospitals before you are 'cured'. About 10 - 15 years after the cure is discovered, some politician will announce that his/her goal is to erradicate it and then the poor will get some. Sadly, this is the only way it works. Of course, this all depends on there being no side effects whatsoever to the vaccine because if there are any, the gov't won't allow it to be distributed. They seem to do that quite often when it comes to good medicine.

 

[Orsorum]

Makes sense... I'm trying to remember, was this done with the Polio vaccine, smallpox, etc?

 

[tcsenter]

Along the same lines as free vaccination clinics, etc... in the interests of public health, would the government allow capitalistic economics to enter into the situation? Or would the gov't buy or steal the cure from the company and distribute it freely to the population?

First rule to remember, we are not Canada.

The effort to find a polio vaccine was almost entirely funded by private work with little government involvement. Our public health system acts as a distributor between the manufacturers of vaccines and the public, which is one of its most critical roles.

However, polio and HIV are worlds apart in terms of risk to the public, communicability, contagiousness, etc. There is no similar compelling reason for the government to take a role with the intent of immunizing the masses against HIV, since the risk of contracting HIV is about the same as getting struck by lightening if you're not a homosexual or IV drug user.

A more apt comparison would be between Hepatitis B and HIV. Hepatitis B vaccine is available but there is no push to immunize the masses. The cost of HEP-B vaccine varies, ranging from free to $150. I'm sure if you were indigent or a high risk person (homosexual or IV drug users) there would be people pushing for federal funding to reduce the costs of the vaccine for a particular sub-set of the population who is most at risk. Of course, an HIV vaccine might be appealing to health care, EMS, police, or lab workers, and the cost may be paid for or off-set by an employer.

But mass immunization? No.

 

[Ganryu]

XzeroII that is not how drug development or distribution works. Consider that the side effects of the smallpox vaccine kill around 1 out of every 10000 people who are vaccinated yet it was still given. Zakath, to answer your question, even if an AIDS vaccine is expensive to produce, the production costs are not more expensive than the damage to the economy that is a result of the prevalance of the virus. Also, there is no need for mass immunizations in places like the US where HIV is not as easily transmissible, due to public awareness of the risks, causes, etc. Places like Africa and India are a different story.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
What will most likely happen is that it will sit in testing for about 5-6 years. After that time, if no more than 2 people die (doesn't even have to be from the vaccine) then it will be distributed quietly to the wealthy and people who will pay tons of money for it. After they have been milked, there will be a big announcement and they will announce that supplies are limited and it will cost a lot of money. After a few years, the price will come down slowly. Of course the cure will not be one shot or anything, it will take years and many injections and return visits to the hospitals before you are 'cured'. About 10 - 15 years after the cure is discovered, some politician will announce that his/her goal is to erradicate it and then the poor will get some. Sadly, this is the only way it works. Of course, this all depends on there being no side effects whatsoever to the vaccine because if there are any, the gov't won't allow it to be distributed. They seem to do that quite often when it comes to good medicine.

Um, can you give me an example of this happening in the US? If so, can you give one in the last 50 years?

 

[tcsenter]

I personally find it offensive that we spend so much money on a disease that is 99.97% preventable so that homosexuals, IV drug users, and those who change sexual partners like underwear can resume their deviant and high risk life-styles without worry while other diseases that affect a lot more people, are not nearly as easily prevented, and can strike anyone through no fault of their own, are funded at a fraction of AIDs research.

Had to get that in there...

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
I personally find it offensive that we spend so much money on a disease that is 99.97% preventable so that homosexuals, IV drug users, and those who change sexual partners like underwear can resume their deviant and high risk life-styles without worry while other diseases that affect a lot more people, are not nearly as easily prevented, and can strike anyone through no fault of their own, are funded at a fraction of AIDs research.

Had to get that in there...

It's not just a disease of drug users and homosexuals. That steretype was disproven years ago.

AIDS is a devastating disease. To say that we should dismiss the millions of people who are already infected is offensive and abhorrant.

 

[Ganryu]

Just ignore tcsenter, he has made the same statements before about AIDS funding has heard all of the information about the stereotypes but still has the same opinion.

 

[tcsenter]

It's not just a disease of drug users and homosexuals. That steretype was disproven years ago.

lol! Actually, it wasn't. The vast majority of AIDs "victims" are homosexuals and IV drug users now that all the hemophiliacs are dead. The stereotype was never a "stereotype", it was simply a fact. Sure, non-drug using heterosexual people have contracted HIV, just as people get struck by lightening and attacked by sharks.

AIDS is a devastating disease. To say that we should dismiss the millions of people who are already infected is offensive and abhorrant.

Sure its devastating, so is lung cancer from smoking for 50 years, so is liver failure after being a drunk for 30 years. Should we fund a preventable disease that is almost exclusively associated with deviant and high risk life-styles to the EXCLUSION of other equally devastating diseases that affect as many or MORE people through no fault of their own?

Of course not, the suggestion is absurd.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
What will most likely happen is that it will sit in testing for about 5-6 years. After that time, if no more than 2 people die (doesn't even have to be from the vaccine) then it will be distributed quietly to the wealthy and people who will pay tons of money for it. After they have been milked, there will be a big announcement and they will announce that supplies are limited and it will cost a lot of money. After a few years, the price will come down slowly. Of course the cure will not be one shot or anything, it will take years and many injections and return visits to the hospitals before you are 'cured'. About 10 - 15 years after the cure is discovered, some politician will announce that his/her goal is to erradicate it and then the poor will get some. Sadly, this is the only way it works. Of course, this all depends on there being no side effects whatsoever to the vaccine because if there are any, the gov't won't allow it to be distributed. They seem to do that quite often when it comes to good medicine.

If anyone wants to know what an F-tard looks like, head on over to XzeroII's house. This post is proof positive that he doesn't know f*ck all about how drugs get discovered, researched, developed, approved, and/or distributed.

 

[Vette73]

Straight woman are are the higgest risk for AIDS right now, not drug users or gays. Most gays communities and drug users know better, sluttly woman don't. They think since they are on birth control that is all they need. There is still herpes, AIDs, warts, etc.....

Also AIDs is not that bad in america but in africa and other undevloped nations it is growing VERY fast. Only time before it catches up to the US.

What would probable happen is rouge (Poor) nations would just get a sample and make their own. Sure we, US, would get mad but if you see someone in yourfamily starving would you not steal a peice of food if there was no other way. Same thing.

Aids is not that bad now but it is growing, and the longer we keep using stereotypes then the more it will grow.
I remember when people were calling ryan white a i love you, just more morons that don't know better. I guess the KKK/Trash meeting was put on hold so they could be the best damm morons they could be then.

Bottom line, AIDs is not a gay or drug user problem anymore, it is a human problem, get over it.

 

[tcsenter]

Just ignore tcsenter, he has made the same statements before about AIDS funding has heard all of the information about the stereotypes but still has the same opinion.

Sure, it makes us feel better to ignore the truth when it isn't to our liking, for some odd reason.

Myth #3

AIDS Is Not Just a Gay Disease

The Centers for Disease Control last year reported that over 90% of all AIDS sufferers are homosexuals, bisexuals, or intravenous drug users. Heterosexuals make up barely 5% of reported cases, but a large portion of this group probably contracted the disease through promiscuous contact with members of the first group. The remaining cases are the result of secondary infections, via the aforementioned contaminated blood transfusions, for instance. In April the New York Times reported that well over 90% of all AIDS cases are male, and they're not getting it from heterosexual contact.

A second oft heard maxim: "Anyone can get AIDS" is quite true. However, anyone can also get struck and killed by a passing horse at the Kentucky Derby. The point is that you won't contract AIDS if you don't do certain things. Ultimately it is impossible to separate the genesis of AIDS (originally called GRIDS, or Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome) from its origin and spread within the practices of a significant segment of the homosexual community.

Dr. William Foege, then director of the Centers for Disease Control, stated in the July 4, 1983 issue of Time, for example, that "The average AIDS victim has had 60 different partners in the past 12 months." It is furthermore disingenuous to claim that moral equivalency exists between those who contracted AIDS via a conscious decision to engage in high risk behavior and those who contracted it in some tragic accident.

The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS

More...

 

[Ganryu]

tcsenter, the fact of the matter is that that the majority of people who have aids are not drug users or homosexuals. You say that only people who have high risk lifestyles have aids, what about babies who got hiv from their mothers through no fault of their own? One thing to consider as well is that many people who are infected do not know they are because they don't exhibit the symptoms for many years. Let us pretend you have a girlfriend. Let's say 10 years ago she had an encounter with someone who was HIV positive and the virus was transferred. Now you are with that girl and you are not using protection because you are in a monogamous relationship and because she is on the pill. It is still possible for her to have infected you without you or her knowing it because the symptoms of AIDS have not appeared yet. You see how it can get transferred now among people who are not in high risk lifestyles? The bottom line is that AIDS is a tremendous public health problem and AIDS research is going to receive a lot of funding because it affects a large number of people, more so than a rare genetic disease which affects 1 out of 100000 people and is not transmissible.

 

[tcsenter]

Straight woman are are the higgest risk for AIDS right now, not drug users or gays.

eh...no. This misconception was pushed strongly by the pro-homo groups and is based on the now infamous study conducted in Los Angeles county. Upon further investigation, the increase was almost solely attributed to prostitutes and IV drug users, or those who were knowingly sleeping with bisexual or IV drug using partners. Similar findings have been debunked in Canada as well.

No matter how you slice it, it always comes down to high risk and deviant life-styles: homosexual, bisexual, multiple partners, IV drug users, or high risk sexual contact with members of one of those groups. Sorry.

 

[GasX]

No matter how you slice it, it always comes down to high risk and deviant life-styles: homosexual, bisexual, multiple partners, IV drug users, or high risk sexual contact with members of one of those groups. Sorry.

My slice goes through Africa - It's a straight disease.

 

[911paramedic]

Well, it is not a national security issue so I don't see how they could just take it.

It would be unfortunate, but the company would win out here I am afraid. The other side is that fact that countries that do not recognize international patents would be making it like crazy. hehehe.

 

[Ganryu]

tcsenter I said that we should ignore you not because I believe we should ignore the truth but because you are uninformed and are spreading false "truths." You are quoting articles and statistics as old as 1983! Recent (as of 2001) statistics show that the majority of HIV users are not homosexuals and drug users. Are you also a member of the faction that doesn't believe that HIV causes AIDS?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: 911paramedic
Well, it is not a national security issue so I don't see how they could just take it.

It would be unfortunate, but the company would win out here I am afraid. The other side is that fact that countries that do not recognize international patents would be making it like crazy. hehehe.

Most likely. So in the US, you think the corporation would win?

I mean, honestly... economically, it's an ideal situation. Perfectly inelastic demand... they could charge whatever they wanted for it.

 

[rgwalt]

What is the alternative though? Just tell these people that they "got what they deserved"? That doesn't seem to be a very forgiving point of view.

What happens if AIDS mutates and becomes airborn? I'm not saying it will, and I don't really know if it is possible or not, but if it did, the contagion that would result would be devistating.

People make bad choices. It doesn't mean that they should suffer for the rest of their lives for their decision. You or I don't have the right to stop research that could potentially save lives just because we believe their lifestyle is wrong.

Ryan

 

[Talon]

NIH hiv/aids statistics