SBS 0 #76 September 23, 2002 I, for one, think that's a good point. At the same time, though, we are not talking about companies that are barely scraping by...we are talking about a multibillion dollar industry. We are talking about a situation where capitalism is standing in the way of people having access to life. There are two extremes here...being soley concerned with the almighty dollar, and being soley concerned with getting cheap drugs to people. On one side, it costs lives because the people don't get the drugs...on the other side, they won't get the drugs anyway, because the companies will be out of business...seems to me that there could be a happy medium somewhere here. -S_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coho21 0 #77 September 23, 2002 Would someone please correct me if I'm wrong BUT my understanding is that there is not in existence a drug that will stop the effects of HIV and AIDS nor is there a vaccine for HIV. I thought that the best, drugs like AZT, did was to slow down the effects of HIV and thus prolong the period before HIV develops into full blown AIDS. If this is in fact the case would not better education of the many ways you can contract HIV be a better preventative measure? (my understanding is that for many years in East Africa HIV was referred/translated to mean the "condom disease") Obviously if I'm wrong on the first point I would consider myself incorrect on the conclusion. J YSD#0009 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SBS 0 #78 September 23, 2002 I am, by no means, qualified to make any statements about exactly what these drugs do or do not do. From my understanding, a huge part of the drug is preventing mothers from passing the disease to their unborn children. There IS a push to educate, but that alone is not going to stop the spread. I can't really think clearly today... Your point is valid, but is mearly a piece of the puzzle. -S_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coho21 0 #79 September 23, 2002 mearly a piece of the puzzle. Yep you're totally correct. I didn't know the drugs prevented the passage of the disease through to the children. Thanks for the info. That is one heck of darn good reason to make the drugs more available. J YSD#0009 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sangiro 4 #80 September 23, 2002 QuoteI wish I had the answers, too. Me too. As I stated in my post I understand that there are layers of complexity around IP and patents. I know the cost of drug development is enormous. I'm not making the case for generic drugs to replace all brand-names. I do think there are a few diseases, of which AIDS is one, that have reached such proportions and threaten the lives of so many people that we should tackle it with the same passion, and more importantly the same budget, as the war on terrorism. The case I made was about what seemed to be hypocrisy. Different rules for different situations. If the economics doesn't make sense for generic AIDS drugs in Africa, then surely it shouldn't make sense for anthrax drugs in the US either? Still in the latter case the economics of research and development was quickly forgotten. As for R&D costs - they are enormous!! A report from last November suggested the current cost of "drug discovery" is $802 million. Also, only five out of every 5,000 potential new drugs tested on animals (a different debate!) reach clinical trials, and only one out of 5,000 ultimately wins approval by the FDA. Another fact about the cost accrued by pharmaceutical companies however is that they still spend more on marketing than on R&D. This is partly due to increased competition in niche markets, as drug companies increasingly launch drugs that are really derivatives of proven commodities. How many headache brands are out there? What do you think the R&D spending was for the last 20 brands who decided to enter that market? Can you imagine how much they are spending trying to get you to choose their brand? I look at pharmaceutical giants and the wealth of their executives and for all the noises I hear about the cost of development I'm not convinced it's a "low margin" business. I do think there's a lot of them out there who bets the farm on a single drug, fails and folds. But you're right... the answers are not clear nor simple. Safe swoops Sangiro Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sangiro 4 #81 September 23, 2002 Quotea huge part of the drug is preventing mothers from passing the disease to their unborn children. Yes, that's the big win right there.Safe swoops Sangiro Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #82 September 24, 2002 >Would someone please correct me if I'm wrong BUT my understanding is that >there is not in existence a drug that will stop the effects of HIV and AIDS nor is >there a vaccine for HIV Not yet. There is a vaccine, which is going into testing on humans right now, being developed at a company in Finland. It won't be on the market until 2006 at the earliest(If I recall correctly, I couldn't find the press release right now.). Erno Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
