Clean vs. Junk - does it really matter?

stealthq

You're kidding, right?

The vast majority of HIV/AIDs research (at least in the US) is not done in big pharma but in independently funded academic labs. Big pharma has zero to do with the success or failure of that research. And if you think they have the resources and better minds and therefore do more or better research, you're mistaken. Big pharma is in big trouble, financially, and has been gradually shutting down research facilities and laying off top researchers for years. Plus, they don't make all that much off of HIV treatment anyway, though at this point every $ counts. They sell much more ($-wise) of drugs like Nexium and Abilify. I don't think AIDS treatments even make the top 100 drug sales list for 2012.

But you're right, this is way off topic.

EvgeniZyntx

In...

...to learn more about...

:reads page 20 of pre-rolled thread:

LOLWUT?

haha right? i jumped the shark.

I'll admit it was probably a bit unnecessarily inflammatory, but the reasoning behind it is simple. HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc, are a multi-billion dollar industry that keep a lot of people extremely rich. I'm not saying people haven't been working on finding cures, but the incentive to find a cure isn't as high as finding drugs that people have to take for life to "control" a disease.

However, this is horribly off topic.

Simple reasoning is often wrong. You lie.

While companies do make more money on heart disease drugs, etc. HIV has not gone underfunded nor has research been deprioritzed to other diseases. By my own calculation (about 7 years ago) funding per patient over 10 years for AIDS versus diabetes was 170 to 1 in favor of AIDS.

As to cures, there has been extensive research to find an AIDS vaccine for over 20 years. Over a dozen vaccine candidates have reached Phase I, II or III. Which means that the industry has looked at 3000 to 5000 potential candidate for cures. In the early days of development of treatment - the development of CRIXIVAN included over 3000 candidate molecule treatments. There are currently no vaccine candidates that I know of that look promising, each one fails out at some phase and the drug companies take huge financial hits to scrape projects but continue - the company that succeeds in developing a vaccine will have a huge new technology leap - however over a billion dollars is spent each year on HIV vaccine research alone.

As to cancer, HPV vaccine is a vaccine of sorts for specific types of cancer. It is commercially available. Others are in the pipelines.

BTW, AIDS drugs are to a large extent generic today.

FredDoyle

Another remarkable display of the Dunning–Kruger effect by our coach again I see. Amazing...

CoachReddy

In...

...to learn more about...

:reads page 20 of pre-rolled thread:

LOLWUT?

haha right? i jumped the shark.

I'll admit it was probably a bit unnecessarily inflammatory, but the reasoning behind it is simple. HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc, are a multi-billion dollar industry that keep a lot of people extremely rich. I'm not saying people haven't been working on finding cures, but the incentive to find a cure isn't as high as finding drugs that people have to take for life to "control" a disease.

However, this is horribly off topic.

Simple reasoning is often wrong. You lie.

While companies do make more money on heart disease drugs, etc. HIV has not gone underfunded nor has research been deprioritzed to other diseases. By my own calculation (about 7 years ago) funding per patient over 10 years for AIDS versus diabetes was 170 to 1 in favor of AIDS.

As to cures, there has been extensive research to find an AIDS vaccine for over 20 years. Over a dozen vaccine candidates have reached Phase I, II or III. Which means that the industry has looked at 3000 to 5000 potential candidate for cures. In the early days of development of treatment - the development of CRIXIVAN included over 3000 candidate molecule treatments. There are currently no vaccine candidates that I know of that look promising, each one fails out at some phase and the drug companies take huge financial hits to scrape projects but continue - the company that succeeds in developing a vaccine will have a huge new technology leap - however over a billion dollars is spent each year on HIV vaccine research alone.

As to cancer, HPV vaccine is a vaccine of sorts for specific types of cancer. It is commercially available. Others are in the pipelines.

BTW, AIDS drugs are to a large extent generic today.

you guys love throwing the "lie" word around. an opinion isn't truth or lie, it's an opinion... lol

you believe the industry is largely altruistic, and i believe that it's a business like any other where the number one priority is the bottom line. however reality is probably that it's a mixture of both.

CoachReddy

In...

...to learn more about...

:reads page 20 of pre-rolled thread:

LOLWUT?

haha right? i jumped the shark.

I'll admit it was probably a bit unnecessarily inflammatory, but the reasoning behind it is simple. HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc, are a multi-billion dollar industry that keep a lot of people extremely rich. I'm not saying people haven't been working on finding cures, but the incentive to find a cure isn't as high as finding drugs that people have to take for life to "control" a disease.

However, this is horribly off topic.

Simple reasoning is often wrong. You lie.

While companies do make more money on heart disease drugs, etc. HIV has not gone underfunded nor has research been deprioritzed to other diseases. By my own calculation (about 7 years ago) funding per patient over 10 years for AIDS versus diabetes was 170 to 1 in favor of AIDS.

As to cures, there has been extensive research to find an AIDS vaccine for over 20 years. Over a dozen vaccine candidates have reached Phase I, II or III. Which means that the industry has looked at 3000 to 5000 potential candidate for cures. In the early days of development of treatment - the development of CRIXIVAN included over 3000 candidate molecule treatments. There are currently no vaccine candidates that I know of that look promising, each one fails out at some phase and the drug companies take huge financial hits to scrape projects but continue - the company that succeeds in developing a vaccine will have a huge new technology leap - however over a billion dollars is spent each year on HIV vaccine research alone.

As to cancer, HPV vaccine is a vaccine of sorts for specific types of cancer. It is commercially available. Others are in the pipelines.

BTW, AIDS drugs are to a large extent generic today.

also, this doesn't seem promising?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/14-adults-cured-of-hiv-functionally-cure-_n_2884201.html

CarmenSRT

In...

...to learn more about...

:reads page 20 of pre-rolled thread:

LOLWUT?

haha right? i jumped the shark.

I'll admit it was probably a bit unnecessarily inflammatory, but the reasoning behind it is simple. HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc, are a multi-billion dollar industry that keep a lot of people extremely rich. I'm not saying people haven't been working on finding cures, but the incentive to find a cure isn't as high as finding drugs that people have to take for life to "control" a disease.

However, this is horribly off topic.

Simple reasoning is often wrong. You lie.

While companies do make more money on heart disease drugs, etc. HIV has not gone underfunded nor has research been deprioritzed to other diseases. By my own calculation (about 7 years ago) funding per patient over 10 years for AIDS versus diabetes was 170 to 1 in favor of AIDS.

As to cures, there has been extensive research to find an AIDS vaccine for over 20 years. Over a dozen vaccine candidates have reached Phase I, II or III. Which means that the industry has looked at 3000 to 5000 potential candidate for cures. In the early days of development of treatment - the development of CRIXIVAN included over 3000 candidate molecule treatments. There are currently no vaccine candidates that I know of that look promising, each one fails out at some phase and the drug companies take huge financial hits to scrape projects but continue - the company that succeeds in developing a vaccine will have a huge new technology leap - however over a billion dollars is spent each year on HIV vaccine research alone.

As to cancer, HPV vaccine is a vaccine of sorts for specific types of cancer. It is commercially available. Others are in the pipelines.

BTW, AIDS drugs are to a large extent generic today.

also, this doesn't seem promising?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/14-adults-cured-of-hiv-functionally-cure-_n_2884201.html

You post that Big Pharma doesn't want an AIDS cure and then torpedo your own argument by posting a link to an article about a study involving Big Pharma products that appear to (at least preliminarily) cure AIDS. Interesting approach. :laugh:

EvgeniZyntx

In...

...to learn more about...

:reads page 20 of pre-rolled thread:

LOLWUT?

haha right? i jumped the shark.

I'll admit it was probably a bit unnecessarily inflammatory, but the reasoning behind it is simple. HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc, are a multi-billion dollar industry that keep a lot of people extremely rich. I'm not saying people haven't been working on finding cures, but the incentive to find a cure isn't as high as finding drugs that people have to take for life to "control" a disease.

However, this is horribly off topic.

Simple reasoning is often wrong. You lie.

While companies do make more money on heart disease drugs, etc. HIV has not gone underfunded nor has research been deprioritzed to other diseases. By my own calculation (about 7 years ago) funding per patient over 10 years for AIDS versus diabetes was 170 to 1 in favor of AIDS.

As to cures, there has been extensive research to find an AIDS vaccine for over 20 years. Over a dozen vaccine candidates have reached Phase I, II or III. Which means that the industry has looked at 3000 to 5000 potential candidate for cures. In the early days of development of treatment - the development of CRIXIVAN included over 3000 candidate molecule treatments. There are currently no vaccine candidates that I know of that look promising, each one fails out at some phase and the drug companies take huge financial hits to scrape projects but continue - the company that succeeds in developing a vaccine will have a huge new technology leap - however over a billion dollars is spent each year on HIV vaccine research alone.

As to cancer, HPV vaccine is a vaccine of sorts for specific types of cancer. It is commercially available. Others are in the pipelines.

BTW, AIDS drugs are to a large extent generic today.

also, this doesn't seem promising?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/14-adults-cured-of-hiv-functionally-cure-_n_2884201.html

That supports what I first wrote about the evolution of AIDS treatment. What is your point?

you guys love throwing the "lie" word around. an opinion isn't truth or lie, it's an opinion... lol

you believe the industry is largely altruistic, and i believe that it's a business like any other where the number one priority is the bottom line. however reality is probably that it's a mixture of both.

No, I have never stated it is largely altruistic - that would be incorrect. It is a business, where one of the priorities is making money, but since a variety of checks and balances exist, being first to market in a competitive environment, etc. are all forces that contradict the idea of some sort of conspiracy to keep cures off the market as you seem to believe.

The idea that you believe that any/all/most businesses are about illegal, unethical and unprofessional practices (which by the way would negatively impact the said "bottom-line") says more about your world view than anything else. You make money in whatever job you are holding, do you consider stealing from your employer or other behaviour acceptable?

You stated that "HIV is a multi-million dollar industry that is keeping people [in the industry] rich" This is indeed a lie. AIDS is horrid disease - not an industry, no one is manufacturing AIDS and I guarantee that the lab from the researcher to top exec that finds a cure (given the novel paths it wll take to do so) will be much richer than any current treatment option - the current daily cost of to a patient of the major drugs is less than 75 cents.

And yes, it is an industry that allows for a lot of altruism but it is a for profit industry. I would love to see it as a non-profit or a mixed organization (as is done in certain countries for orphan drugs) but the truth is that in the absence of the profit motivation novel drug development fails.

CoachReddy

In...

...to learn more about...

:reads page 20 of pre-rolled thread:

LOLWUT?

haha right? i jumped the shark.

I'll admit it was probably a bit unnecessarily inflammatory, but the reasoning behind it is simple. HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc, are a multi-billion dollar industry that keep a lot of people extremely rich. I'm not saying people haven't been working on finding cures, but the incentive to find a cure isn't as high as finding drugs that people have to take for life to "control" a disease.

However, this is horribly off topic.

Simple reasoning is often wrong. You lie.

While companies do make more money on heart disease drugs, etc. HIV has not gone underfunded nor has research been deprioritzed to other diseases. By my own calculation (about 7 years ago) funding per patient over 10 years for AIDS versus diabetes was 170 to 1 in favor of AIDS.

As to cures, there has been extensive research to find an AIDS vaccine for over 20 years. Over a dozen vaccine candidates have reached Phase I, II or III. Which means that the industry has looked at 3000 to 5000 potential candidate for cures. In the early days of development of treatment - the development of CRIXIVAN included over 3000 candidate molecule treatments. There are currently no vaccine candidates that I know of that look promising, each one fails out at some phase and the drug companies take huge financial hits to scrape projects but continue - the company that succeeds in developing a vaccine will have a huge new technology leap - however over a billion dollars is spent each year on HIV vaccine research alone.

As to cancer, HPV vaccine is a vaccine of sorts for specific types of cancer. It is commercially available. Others are in the pipelines.

BTW, AIDS drugs are to a large extent generic today.

also, this doesn't seem promising?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/14-adults-cured-of-hiv-functionally-cure-_n_2884201.html

That supports what I first wrote about the evolution of AIDS treatment. What is your point?

you guys love throwing the "lie" word around. an opinion isn't truth or lie, it's an opinion... lol

you believe the industry is largely altruistic, and i believe that it's a business like any other where the number one priority is the bottom line. however reality is probably that it's a mixture of both.

No, I have never stated it is largely altruistic - that would be incorrect. It is a business, where one of the priorities is making money, but since a variety of checks and balances exist, being first to market in a competitive environment, etc. are all forces that contradict the idea of some sort of conspiracy to keep cures off the market as you seem to believe.

The idea that you believe that any/all/most businesses are about illegal, unethical and unprofessional practices (which by the way would negatively impact the said "bottom-line") says more about your world view than anything else. You make money in whatever job you are holding, do you consider stealing from your employer or other behaviour acceptable?

You stated that "HIV is a multi-million dollar industry that is keeping people [in the industry] rich" This is indeed a lie. AIDS is horrid disease - not an industry, no one is manufacturing AIDS and I guarantee that the lab from the researcher to top exec that finds a cure (given the novel paths it wll take to do so) will be much richer than any current treatment option - the current daily cost of to a patient of the major drugs is less than 75 cents.

And yes, it is an industry that allows for a lot of altruism but it is a for profit industry. I would love to see it as a non-profit or a mixed organization (as is done in certain countries for orphan drugs) but the truth is that in the absence of the profit motivation novel drug development fails.

you're putting an awful lot of words in my mouth.

1) I never said, and nor do I feel, that " businesses are about illegal, unethical and unprofessional practices". I simply believe that when we begin to talk about people who are making millions every year at the top of the food chain of major corporations, that ethics do begin to take a back seat to the bottom line. For example - Major League Baseball owners recently just voted to do away with pensions for their staff. Jerry Reinsdorf, the owner of the White Sox, was the only one to vote against it, claiming that it's unethical for men making tens of millions yearly to tell their employees they don't deserve a pension after dedicating their career to the organizations.

Why do you feel it's any different in the pharmaceutical industry?

2) I said HIV/AIDS/Cancer/etc is a multi-billion dollar industry - not HIV alone. The disease treatment industry as a whole is to what I was referring.

3) HIV costing $ 0.75 a day?

But the pills for HIV that he's taken daily since then have come with a hefty price tag. Monthly HIV treatment regimens range from $2,000 to $5,000 — much of it for drugs.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/07/27/157499134/cost-of-treatment-still-a-challenge-for-hiv-patients-in-u-s

yeah...... it's not all unicorns and rainbows quite yet.

EvgeniZyntx

You wrote "We would have cured AIDS years ago if not for big pharma that makes a MINT off all those drug cocktails."

Rather than "put words into your mouth" feel free to explain 1) how big Pharma has prevented the curing of AIDS 2) in a manner that is not illegal, unethical and unprofessional.

I'm all ears.

EvgeniZyntx

And I apologize for the confusion on the treatment cost. I wrote that sentence poorly - what I meant to write is that the cost of certain pills is 75 cent per day - the Pharma specific costs are about 20$ per day total in te US and can readily be halved with the arrival of generics. (Annals of internal med. jan 2013)

CoachReddy

And I apologize for the confusion on the treatment cost. I wrote that sentence poorly - what I meant to write is that the cost of certain pills is 75 cent per day - the Pharma specific costs are about 20$ per day total in te US and can readily be halved with the arrival of generics. (Annals of internal med. jan 2013)

why haven't there been generics until now?

EvgeniZyntx

And I apologize for the confusion on the treatment cost. I wrote that sentence poorly - what I meant to write is that the cost of certain pills is 75 cent per day - the Pharma specific costs are about 20$ per day total in te US and can readily be halved with the arrival of generics. (Annals of internal med. jan 2013)

why haven't there been generics until now?

Intellectual property law.

CoachReddy

And I apologize for the confusion on the treatment cost. I wrote that sentence poorly - what I meant to write is that the cost of certain pills is 75 cent per day - the Pharma specific costs are about 20$ per day total in te US and can readily be halved with the arrival of generics. (Annals of internal med. jan 2013)

why haven't there been generics until now?

Intellectual property law.

so I assume a drug has to be on the market for a certain period of time before generics can be produced?

amberlykay1014

So.... I guess we're not talking about food anymore, huh? lol.. Carry on!

CoachReddy

So.... I guess we're not talking about food anymore, huh? lol.. Carry on!

hahaha right?

EvgeniZyntx

And I apologize for the confusion on the treatment cost. I wrote that sentence poorly - what I meant to write is that the cost of certain pills is 75 cent per day - the Pharma specific costs are about 20$ per day total in te US and can readily be halved with the arrival of generics. (Annals of internal med. jan 2013)

why haven't there been generics until now?

Intellectual property law.

so I assume a drug has to be on the market for a certain period of time before generics can be produced?

Not quite correct, patent protection is 20 years in the US from the time of application, whether you go to market or not. In reality market presence is about 5-12 years. Are you going anywhere with this line? Do you have issue with patent law?

Edit:typo.

CoachReddy

And I apologize for the confusion on the treatment cost. I wrote that sentence poorly - what I meant to write is that the cost of certain pills is 75 cent per day - the Pharma specific costs are about 20$ per day total in te US and can readily be halved with the arrival of generics. (Annals of internal med. jan 2013)

why haven't there been generics until now?

Intellectual property law.

so I assume a drug has to be on the market for a certain period of time before generics can be produced?

Not quite correct, patent protection is 20 years in the US from the time of application, whether you go to market or not. In reality market presence is about 5-12 years. Are you going anywhere with this line? Do you have issue with patent law?

Edit:typo.

nah I'm just curious since I know jack **** about it. so then why are there so many generics for every other type of med? I'm just confused as to why generics for HIV/AIDS seem to have taken longer to come out than with, say, reflux.

EvgeniZyntx

And I apologize for the confusion on the treatment cost. I wrote that sentence poorly - what I meant to write is that the cost of certain pills is 75 cent per day - the Pharma specific costs are about 20$ per day total in te US and can readily be halved with the arrival of generics. (Annals of internal med. jan 2013)

why haven't there been generics until now?

Intellectual property law.

so I assume a drug has to be on the market for a certain period of time before generics can be produced?

Not quite correct, patent protection is 20 years in the US from the time of application, whether you go to market or not. In reality market presence is about 5-12 years. Are you going anywhere with this line? Do you have issue with patent law?

Edit:typo.

nah I'm just curious since I know jack **** about it. so then why are there so many generics for every other type of med? I'm just confused as to why generics for HIV/AIDS seem to have taken longer to come out than with, say, reflux.

No, there are generics for some (edit) HIV drugs now in the US. For example AZT had a patent expiry AND three different generics available since 2005.

Edit 2: btw, the first filing for AZT generic in the US was requested within hours of the patent expiry and fast tracked by the FDA.