There is no cure for cancer/AIDS/HIV...or is there?!?!? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-29-2002, 07:44 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite

The Revival Of The AIDS Crisis
By Chad Stafko

"Oftentimes AIDS activists claim that the disease does not discriminate when selecting its victims. This is simply not true. Individuals who are in monogamous sexual relationships and have not engaged in promiscuous sex, have little chance in ever contracting the disease. "

"With the methods of transmission laid out, it becomes quite obvious that AIDS, unlike so many of the diseases that affect millions of Americans, is largely preventable if only individuals would not have multiple sexual partners, either in homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Yet, despite the obvious simplicity in preventing the spread of this disease, our government spends an enormous amount of money on AIDS."

"If AIDS, which some estimate affects an upper limit of 900,000 Americans, is truly only a minor cause of death among Americans, then why is such an enormous amount of federal funding allocated to the disease? After all, how much money should it take to tell Americans, and especially children, to not 'sleep around' and engage in homosexual relationships? "

Dear Lemonite, why do you quote shit like that?
__________________

hiphop is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 12:03 PM   #22
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
Dear Lemonite, why do you quote shit like that?
In Lemonite's defense, what the article says does appear to be true. At least in the United States, the transmission of HIV by blood transfusion has almost disappeared; the spread of the disease is now limited to three avenues:

- Sexual intercourse (homosexual AND heterosexual; the article emphasizes the point).

- Shared needles (typically by heroin addicts).

- The transmission from a woman to her child during pregnancy.

The main path of tranmission IS sexual intercourse, that path WOULD BE cut off with sexual prudence, abstinance before a lifelong monogamous relationship. The article is correct in asserting that AIDS "is largely preventable if only individuals would not have multiple sexual partners, either in homosexual or heterosexual relationships."

Finally, given the number of people suffering with the disease and the "free will" nature of its transmission, the effort to combat the disease DOES seem to get a disproportionate amount of federal dollars, probably because of political reasons. The same gay rights organization that insist that AIDS is not a "gay" disease (for the record, they ARE right) are STILL among the loudest voices for funding AIDS projects.

As offensive as you might find that article, nothing you quote was inaccurate.
__________________

__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 03:06 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba


In Lemonite's defense, what the article says does appear to be true. At least in the United States, the transmission of HIV by blood transfusion has almost disappeared; the spread of the disease is now limited to three avenues:

- Sexual intercourse (homosexual AND heterosexual; the article emphasizes the point).

- Shared needles (typically by heroin addicts).

- The transmission from a woman to her child during pregnancy.

The main path of tranmission IS sexual intercourse, that path WOULD BE cut off with sexual prudence, abstinance before a lifelong monogamous relationship. The article is correct in asserting that AIDS "is largely preventable if only individuals would not have multiple sexual partners, either in homosexual or heterosexual relationships."

Finally, given the number of people suffering with the disease and the "free will" nature of its transmission, the effort to combat the disease DOES seem to get a disproportionate amount of federal dollars, probably because of political reasons. The same gay rights organization that insist that AIDS is not a "gay" disease (for the record, they ARE right) are STILL among the loudest voices for funding AIDS projects.

As offensive as you might find that article, nothing you quote was inaccurate.
No, the article is inaccurate. It doesnīt mention the fact that practically ninetynine percent of relationships are not monogamous. Thats the fact and therefore the article is totally useless and the author sucks.

Imagine you have a wife, Bubba. Imagine you are married to her for many years. You are true to each other, but for one reason or the other she has sex with a stranger, just one night. But this stranger didnīt have a relatively monogamous life like her. He had sexual intercourse with many women, one of them positive. He is positive. He gives it to your wife, she gives it to you. Just one example, excuse me to stress your patience with personal examples.

Now you want to say "well but then in the end it was not monogamous"... but who can guarantee you to be true for all her life? No one, Bubba. Neither you can guarantee that. There is no guarantee. There is just the will. The strong will maybe, sure. But zero of guarantee.

Another example... imagine you have had a happy juvenile life, say you had about ten girls with who you were having sexual intercourse. Now you meet your first real partner. You donīt know it, but you are already infected. Three years after you married her, she gets ill. And it was a perfect monogamous relationship, right? But you didnīt make a test. Yes, its a cruel disease. Not early enough? Welcome to the club.

I donīt care if the author of this article throws in a few "liberal goodies" (sorry liberals), like "Oh we all know that it is not only about homosexuality, so lets repeat it again, it can also happen to heterosexuals". But come on, everyone knows that, this point doesnīt have to be emphasized (or maybe also - for the bulls and the cows).

It is true that this disease does not discriminate when its searching its victims (puh, how can a disease discriminate? - typical shit journalist style).

Then, the author also seems to be the opinion that the money would be better spent for doing a big media campaign, maybe to tell the people "Donīt fuck around". Sure, this will have a great effect. Ridiculous.

"And how much should it cost to tell especially children not to sleep around?" (well how much does one ad, double site, in your magazine cost, dear Mr. Journalist?). Sentences like that make me vomit, like a bag full of shit. First, children donīt "sleep around". Children are sexually abused, and mainly not by other children, but by guys like this motherfucker. Juveniles have sex, maybe, idiot. But since when do they "sleep around" more than adults?

Go get a life, man. I am confident enough - without backing up with data - that most of the Americans have sex not only for the reason of getting a child, and more than two times per life, and more than one partner per life. This wonīt change, even if you have the biggest media campagne this world has ever seen. This means that the number of new infections can only be reduced if we all use condoms. Not if we would all live monogamous - which most of us will never do, anyway.
hiphop is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 03:18 PM   #24
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 11:27 PM
Dude... you're ignoring what is absolute fact. The AIDS virus spreads through sex with multiple people. If you want to stop the spread of AIDS, for sure, that is THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT. I know it sucks, because you don't get to have sex with anyone you want to. But it's the only way to guarantee that the spread stops.

I am not at all at risk of contracting Aids. You know why? Because I haven't had sex. Having sex with only one partner in your life is a sure fire way to avoid AIDS (providing your partner did as well). Granted, with this model, there would be much less sex happening... as if we'd gone back to before the so-called "sexual revolution"... but you have to remember that before the "sexual revolution" the spread of STD's was not a tenth of what it is today. Now we have more sex, and now we have more sick.
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 03:42 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by KingPin
Dude... you're ignoring what is absolute fact. The AIDS virus spreads through sex with multiple people. If you want to stop the spread of AIDS, for sure, that is THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT. I know it sucks, because you don't get to have sex with anyone you want to. But it's the only way to guarantee that the spread stops.

I am not at all at risk of contracting Aids. You know why? Because I haven't had sex. Having sex with only one partner in your life is a sure fire way to avoid AIDS (providing your partner did as well). Granted, with this model, there would be much less sex happening... as if we'd gone back to before the so-called "sexual revolution"... but you have to remember that before the "sexual revolution" the spread of STD's was not a tenth of what it is today. Now we have more sex, and now we have more sick.
Well sorry there Dude but you are ignoring what is absolute fact.
There are things called CONDOMS. Ok, we all hate them. But they do protect. If you didnīt have any sex until now, I can understand that you donīt know that...
come back in a few years.

Great to hear you will have sex with only one partner. Have fun.
hiphop is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 04:01 PM   #26
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


Well sorry there Dude but you are ignoring what is absolute fact.
There are things called CONDOMS. Ok, we all hate them. But they do protect. If you didnīt have any sex until now, I can understand that you donīt know that...
come back in a few years.

Great to hear you will have sex with only one partner. Have fun.
Now now now... let's not be snarky.

I'm fully aware of condoms, smartass. And I understand that without having had sex. They DO NOT protect against STDs 100% of the time... not even close. That is a fact. Condoms are not more safe than not screwing a load of different people. Get real.

I appreciate the way you tried to discredit my point by making fun of me... childish, but it reveals a alot.

Yeah, I'll have fun... a whole lot of fun, in fact... And you have fun putting yourself at risk for contracting a life-ending disease. Or a painful STD that lasts your whole life.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have sex. Not at all. Go mad, have a great time. But don't tell me that somehow I'm the delusional one for knowing that you're putting yourself and your health at risk.
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 05:03 PM   #27
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 06:27 PM
Wow, KingPin, you and I agree... Are you sure you're not someone else?

Obviously, I disagree with hiphop:

Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
No, the article is inaccurate. It doesnīt mention the fact that practically ninetynine percent of relationships are not monogamous. Thats the fact and therefore the article is totally useless and the author sucks.
The article's assertion is that lifelong monagamy between two disease-free people (gay or straight) will prevent both from becoming infected with HIV (excluding IV drug use or the almost non-existent transfusion of infected blood).

This IS accurate, regardless of how few people actually practice monogamy. At most, that stastic means that the article's assertion is incomplete, not inaccurate. Perhaps it means that lifelong monogamy OUGHT to be further encouraged, that we should turn away from this idea that sexual liberation somehow leads to spiritual liberation (see "Pleasantville" for a good example of the insidious suggestion).

The article is NOT useless - particularly to those practicing lifelong monogamy and those encouraging the practice in others.

And, well, the author doesn't suck.

You're absolutely right that lifelong monogamy may be a very difficult thing to achieve, but many priests practice lifelong celibacy: if a life without sex is possible, surely it's reasonable to expect a life with just one sexual partner, a husband or wife whom you love more than yourself, a soulmate.

Short of that, some sense of social responsibility is a good thing: if not monagamy, then the use of condoms and regular testing is the least you can do.

But, speaking as a Christian, I believe God intended sex within marriage, lifelong heterosexual monogamy sealed by a binding oath before God and the rest of the world - two becoming one flesh, the one remaining under God's provision.

I close with a slight disagreement with KingPin:

Quote:
Originally posted by KingPin
Granted, with this model, there would be much less sex happening...
Not necessarily: it seems possible that a husband and wife could have more sex. One can hope.

Either way, I'd prefer quality over quantity. I believe - and my heart confirms this - that sex under the institution of marriage with the woman I love (my girlfriend of two years) would be far better than sex under any other circumstances. Beyond the physical enjoyment, there would be a real union of minds, hearts, EVEN souls - all with the blessing of God Almighty.

I believe God objects to sex outside of marriage, but He doesn't merely allow it within marriage: He encourages is, almost saying, "Go ahead, kids, have fun." He created the act, and all its pleasures, for that very purpose.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 05:15 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by KingPin


Now now now... let's not be snarky.

I'm fully aware of condoms, smartass. And I understand that without having had sex. They DO NOT protect against STDs 100% of the time... not even close. That is a fact. Condoms are not more safe than not screwing a load of different people. Get real.

I appreciate the way you tried to discredit my point by making fun of me... childish, but it reveals a alot.

Yeah, I'll have fun... a whole lot of fun, in fact... And you have fun putting yourself at risk for contracting a life-ending disease. Or a painful STD that lasts your whole life.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have sex. Not at all. Go mad, have a great time. But don't tell me that somehow I'm the delusional one for knowing that you're putting yourself and your health at risk.
Oh come on Kingpin, donīt take me that serious. I would never joke anybody about sexuality, ok I just wanted to say "you oughta know that" then it occured to me that you canīt, youīre not my wife.

It is true that I am at risk, yes. And if you really can have sex with only one partner, in all your life, congratulations, seriously. Couldnīt absolutely be my kind of life (for them girls: yes I can be true, I have been true for years and years, so donīt interprete).

Apart from our private lives: condoms are pretty safe. Not one hundred percent, but donīt they reach something like this so called factor of 97 percent? You are protecting yourself against HIV if you use them. KingPin, go to ask any AIDS/ HIV test center in the world.

Or lets make a virtual bet. Say you have 1,000 pairs of partners who say and feel they will be true to each other for all their life and donīt use any protection, no one infected. Plus, take 1,000 pairs who will always use condoms, include the fact that 3 percent of them break or whatever, and also in this group, no one infected. Go there after 20 years, and see what you will find. I am very sure that more than 30 of the 1,000 first pairs will tell you they have been untrue, at least once in their life.

Sorry if you took it snarky, Kingpin, this was absolutely not my intention. I was answering this style because you started with "Dude", so I thought you would take it more like joking around.
No offense there. Okey, Dude?
hiphop is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 05:23 PM   #29
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


Oh come on Kingpin, donīt take me that serious. I would never joke anybody about sexuality, ok I just wanted to say "you oughta know that" then it occured to me that you canīt, youīre not my wife.

It is true that I am at risk, yes. And if you really can have sex with only one partner, in all your life, congratulations, seriously. Couldnīt absolutely be my kind of life (for them girls: yes I can be true, I have been true for years and years, so donīt interprete).

Apart from our private lives: condoms are pretty safe. Not one hundred percent, but donīt they reach something like this so called factor of 97 percent? You are protecting yourself against HIV if you use them. KingPin, go to ask any AIDS/ HIV test center in the world.

Or lets make a virtual bet. Say you have 1,000 pairs of partners who say and feel they will be true to each other for all their life and donīt use any protection, no one infected. Plus, take 1,000 pairs who will always use condoms, include the fact that 3 percent of them break or whatever, and also in this group, no one infected. Go there after 20 years, and see what you will find. I am very sure that more than 30 of the 1,000 first pairs will tell you they have been untrue, at least once in their life.

Sorry if you took it snarky, Kingpin, this was absolutely not my intention. I was answering this style because you started with "Dude", so I thought you would take it more like joking around.
No offense there. Okey, Dude?
Totally man... my bad. Dude.

Excuse me if I'm a bit sensitive on the issue of sex... trust me.. I'm NOT having a good time doing this no-sex thing. it's immensely frustrating for anyone who is trying to do it. It's even more frustrating when people assume cause you choose not to, means you're completely naive on the topic. I certainly like the idea of being with one girl... hoepfully I can live up to the ideal.

And I don't mean to imply everyone should stop having sex. I just think the author has a point in that this disease which is so deadly and feared is actually easily stopped... anybody can ensure they don't receive it. Where as something like Cancer strikes without warning or foreknowledge (except skin cancer and excessive sun exposure, etc.) So should those diseases take precedent, perhaps?

You're right, condom use is a BIG step in preventing the spread of HIV. 97% is still good odds, absolutely. I just find it odd when people act like Abstinence is outrageous... when in fact it's the only sure way.

Once again, sorry for the overreaction.

I look forward to discussing with you and against you!
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 05:26 PM   #30
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba
Wow, KingPin, you and I agree... Are you sure you're not someone else?


I close with a slight disagreement with KingPin:

Not necessarily: it seems possible that a husband and wife could have more sex. One can hope.
It isn't the first time, actually. I'd be willing to guess that we'd probably agree wholeheartedly on the majority of topics, with the exception being the US Government and maybe the role of Christianity in Politics. But, as they say, if we were all alike, some of us would be unnecessary.

I agree with your point. By "less sex" I meant less sexual partners... less sex with a variety of people. Or even, if I get married at 35 and start having sex then, no matter how much I try, it'll be hard to have as much in my lifetime as someone who's been going since 17!
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 05:27 PM   #31
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 11:27 PM

Can anybody else feel the love?
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 06:33 PM   #32
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,349
Local Time: 03:27 PM

__________________
Sicy is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 09:25 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 05:27 PM
heterosexuals get aids just as commonly than homosexuals

Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite
After all, how much money should it take to tell Americans, and especially children, to not 'sleep around' and engage in homosexual relationships? "
L.Unplugged
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba In Lemonite's defense, what the article says does appear to be true
no bubba, it does not tell the whole truth. yes, most of it was very valid, but that last part is just moronic.

moving on, this whole conspiracy thing is bullshit, and if you think that getting the cure for HIV/AIDS would conflict with capitolism you've got something else coming to you. there is no WAY that our government would keep a cure from the public. if an american comes up with the cure, how quickly do you think that researcher would be out selling that to the millions afflicted with it around the world?

curing AIDS and curing smallpox is two very different things. AIDS is a retrovirus. meaning that its RNA codes off of the host's DNA, which is backwards from all other viruses. it also moves backwards. rather than coding gene 1, gene 2, gene 3, it codes gene 3, gene 2, gene 1, or 2,1,3, or 3,1,2...there is no real pattern, making it EXTREMELY difficult to make one mass cure. after coding your DNA from its RNA, it makes more of your cells, only with its infected RNA. and since your body will not recognize this new DNA as a pathogen since it only reads your own DNA, it will replicate this new infected cell over and over and over because you need red blood cells to live.

next, your body's white blood cells try to attack the red blood cells because THEY revognize there is something wrong. the red blood cells fight the white ones and infect the white blood cells in the same manner as the first cells were made and your body shuts down.

it happens thousands of different ways. it all has to do with the proteins your body makes. some bodies, like magic johnson, can stave it off for a long time. others cannot. the AIDS cocktail is so much pain to take, over 50 pills every morning. and some are allergic to the cocktail which is tragic in and of itself.

now if your brother wants to be convinced this whole thing is a conspiracy, show him the medical facts, if that doesn't please him, he can come talk to me and i'll tell him of the many friends i have that have died from HIV or are still living with the pain, some through no fault of their own, some straight, some homoexual.
Lilly is offline  
Old 07-30-2002, 02:49 AM   #34
Refugee
 
Klodomir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,198
Local Time: 12:27 AM
Look, Bubba. I am aware that he says some things in this article that are actually true - and I'm also aware that what theguywiththelongname said about 99% of relationships not being monogamous is untrue - but the problem with this article is that the writer is obviously heavily biased. Yes, he states in the beginning that both heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity is dangerous... but then he just can't resist that little dig at the end. That, to me, makes the rest of his ideas invalid to me, because his bigotry shows that his vision is clouded, probably by his religious beliefs.

As for the conspiracy, no, I don't believe in that, in the same way that I don't believe that Dubya didn't know about the 9/11 attacks. I still have a bit of faith in mankind.
Klodomir is offline  
Old 07-30-2002, 11:20 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in Valparaiso, IN
Posts: 6,361
Local Time: 03:27 PM
How many of you are scientists? Raise your hands....Now, of the precious few of you who are scientists, how many of you have done or are currently doing diagnostic or therapeutic R&D? Uh huh... that's what I thought.

Not to be ostentatious, but I am a scientist who has done R&D in the areas of diagnostics and therapeutics. And for all of you who are screaming "conspiracy theory" or "there's no money in a cure" - all I can say is do some homework.

To find a new "biomarker" - something that could be used for early cancer diagnosis - an enormous amount of work must be done. The markers that are currently used, like PSA (for prostate cancer), are rather poor. These were "easy" markers to find. Only recently has the technology advance to the point where we might be able to find a particular protein that is only expressed by cancer cells. But even once that marker is found, one has to identify it. Then one has to see what stages of cancer where it exists. One has to be sure it doesn't show up in healthy people. This requires hundreds of samples from, of course, hundreds of patients, just for a potential discovery. Then comes the clinical trials where now thousands of patients are being tested. After this work, even if the marker works beautifully, one now has to convince the medical world of its value. After all, if you were a patient, would you prefer a "tried and true" method to be used if your doctor were screening for cancer, or would you be willing to use a revolutionary new method? Not many patients are willing to be guinea pigs. The cost for the equipment to do this work can easily run to millions of dollars. Add in the people, the samples and marketing and one can see the costs skyrocket. Yet, despite all this work, the marker still might not be accepted. All it takes is for some prestigious scientists or doctors to claim the marker is ineffective in his/her/their hands and the project could die.

With regards to therapeutics, all "easy" drugs have been found, like penicillin. Diseases caused from drug-resistant bacteria, a virus or cancer are far more complex. One has to understand how these diseases work. Where does a virus or bacteria attack the body? Where does it attack the cell? What does it do after the attack? How does the body respond? What specific DNA, RNA or proteins are involved? Can these items be isolated and purified? Can we obtain a structure? For example, if a specific protein is crucial for a virus to multiply, one tries to find this protein, then purify it and study how it works. These are NOT simple tasks. A protein is a very large molecule consisting of hydrophobic, hydrophilic, ionic and covalent interactions. If there is an "active site" on the protein (if it is an ezyme or a receptor protein), one needs to determine the shape and size of that site and what amino acids are involved. Then, perhaps one can design and create a molecule that could bind in that active site and prevent the protein from doing its job. But to do this work, one requires extensive molecular biology, proteomic, computer modeling and organic chemistry skills. Only recently have we the technology to find some of these proteins. Only recently have we been able to "model" drugs into the active site of a protein. Plus, even if we find this wonderful target site to attack and create a drug, will the body take the drug? Can the cell uptake the drug so that it could be used on this protein? What are the side effects? Can the drug be properly formulated? Can it be stable for an extended period of time for practical usage? Will it pass animal studies? Will the FDA ultimately approve it? All of these are INCREDIBLY costly and challenging areas - and ultimately the drug might fail. This results in starting all over again.

More recently, instead of designing new drugs, scientists are looking for more natural sources - that is, the proteins that we already have in us as potential drugs. Could a naturally existing protein, if administered locally or in higher dosages be an effective treatment for a particular disease? To even make this discovery, this requires tons of laboratory and computer work in first identifying potential genetic targets, mining out those targets, identifying the protein, isolating the protein, cloning the protein, purifying the protein, formulating the protein, characterizing the protein, and testing the protein. If a given formulation is not stable for an extended time, the protein drug is not valid. If the protein appears stable by analytical tests, but is not biologically active, then again, the protein must be reformulated. And animal studies can easily negate all the work. And even if everything works on a small scale, can it be scaled up for mass production?

The costs of instruments, people and supplies alone can run in the millions of dollars. Often, it may cost several million just to build a proper facility. Then one has to get instruments. Then one has to get supplies and equipment. Then one has to get trained people who can do these experiments. But at this level, you can't get some high school graduate to do the work. We are talking people with Ph.D.'s and years of experience. All of this adds to the cost of a project. Yet, despite all of these experts and success and costs, if the FDA has any doubts about a potential drug, everything can crash.

Now, you can claim that the FDA might be part of the conspiracy theory. But from what I've read, I highly doubt it. When they reject a drug, it's for very good reasons. There is a kink in the data. Sometimes the data is misleading. Yes, scientists and companies can be desperate and may want to make something look better than it really is. If the FDA didn't screen so carefully, there could be some VERY dangerous drugs out there. While the FDA may take too long or reject drugs that were approved in other countries, how often have we seen an FDA-approved drug falter? Even the FDA can make a mistake. This is because we are dealing with living entities. It is impossible to fully predict short-term and long-term effects of any drug.

Some doctors get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies. Some of you, as a result, might think this is part of a conspiracy theory. However, this is just standard marketing. A company has to do all it can to let doctors know of new drugs while reminding them of current successful drugs.

A company might have 200 possible drugs in its pipeline. And that's after thousands of candidates were screened. Out of those 200, only 1 or 2 might become actual drugs. The amount of time and money invested in these projects is enormous.

This is why drugs cost so much. This is why its easier to put a man on the moon than to find a cure for the common cold. This is why finding true cures for some diseases is nearly impossible.

One must remember that almost all drugs only help the body. It's our own immune system that truly wins the battle for us. Sometimes a disease gets out of hand - so taking an antibiotic, for example, gives our immune system a better chance at fighting off the infection. Same is true for cancer or HIV. All the drugs will do is assist our immune system in fighting off the disease. As such, it is very likely that no cure may ever be found. We might only be able to put a cancer in remission - because at some point, another cancer might return. We might only be able to lower HIV levels to a non-damaging point, because there's always that chance that due to some lifestyle change (age, other diseases), HIV might fully return. To truly rid the body of cancer or HIV or other diseases is an amitious goal and one we all hope to find. But it is NOT an easy task by any means. As a person who has worked in these areas for 15 years, I can say with complete confidence that there is no "conspiracy theory" preventing the public from receiving a cure. If a cure was there, it would be used.

Now, why do drugs cost so much? Hopefully, all that I've written above explains that. The costs for finding a drug could be millions upon millions of dollars. For someone to then ask a company to just "give" this drug away is indeed a challenge. Because a company relies on those token few successful drugs it has to generate income to perform R&D on future drugs. It relies on the money from those drugs to pay its employees and exist as a company. While there is a moral obligation to help those in need, I can understand why companies can only go so far. If you worked for a software company and spent years working on some powerful software that would truly help revolutionize computing and truly benefit humanity, would you just "give it away"? Morally, you might rush to say yes - but keep in mind that companies rely on that $$ to pay their employees, which in turn provide us with food and homes.

Therefore, don't come down on pharmaceutical companies too harshly. There is an enormous cost to creating a drug and the challenges are even more overwhelming. But when a new drug is found, then the benefits are obvious. Its thanks to the extensive reasearch on HIV and cancer that we have prolonged the lives we have. People may not be cured of HIV, but they are able to live with it and no longer fear dying. The goal now is to see if we can get this drug cheaply to those in Africa - and that's not necessarily an easy task. But we are working on it.
__________________
https://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 07-31-2002, 03:14 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:27 AM
WOW, doctorwho.
hiphop is offline  
Old 07-31-2002, 03:22 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 05:27 PM
kaw i love this post good doctor

Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho
How many of you are scientists? Raise your hands....Now, of the precious few of you who are scientists, how many of you have done or are currently doing diagnostic or therapeutic R&D? Uh huh... that's what I thought.
*points at own response*

i tried to convey the difficulty of finding a cure...but i think you and your "hey, i actually am a researcher, i didn't just take a college course in biology"-ness got the point across a little better than i.

it was a fabulous post
Lilly is offline  
Old 07-31-2002, 03:59 PM   #38
War Child
 
Spiral_Staircase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 684
Local Time: 05:27 PM
can we get an applause smilie? Some clapping hands or something?

docwho rocks the sure shot.
Spiral_Staircase is offline  
Old 07-31-2002, 06:19 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Lemon Meringue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here
Posts: 3,851
Local Time: 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Spiral_Staircase
can we get an applause smilie? Some clapping hands or something?

docwho rocks the sure shot.
Lemon Meringue is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 08:29 PM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,728
Local Time: 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba
The article is correct in asserting that AIDS "is largely preventable if only individuals would not have multiple sexual partners, either in homosexual or heterosexual relationships."
HIV infection is preventable in this manner. I know HIV and AIDS are used interchangeably, but it still bugs me, because theoretically one could live with HIV indefinitely.
__________________

anitram is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ÂĐ Interference.com
×