Drug Companies Seek Profit Instead of Cure For AIDS

[stinkynuts]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/12/25/aids.vaccine.ap/index.html

Reading the article below just confirmed what everyone knows: Drug companies have absolutely no incentive for finding cures for diseases like cancer and AIDS. They are out to make a profit, and milk every penny from every sick person. By keeping HIV patients on drugs for years, they can profit heavily.

We all know that if the pharmaceutical companies really put the search for a cure first, AIDS and cancer would have been curable by now.


AIDS expert has theory on vaccine's delay

Sunday, December 25, 2005; Posted: 2:31 p.m. EST (19:31 GMT)




WASHINGTON (AP) -- In an unusually candid admission, the federal chief of AIDS research says he believes drug companies don't have an incentive to create a vaccine for the HIV and are likely to wait to profit from it after the government develops one.

That means the government has had to spend more time focusing on the processes that drug companies ordinarily follow in developing new medicines and bringing them to market.

"We had to spend some time and energy paying attention to those aspects of development because the private side isn't picking it up," Dr. Edmund Tramont testified in a deposition in a recent employment lawsuit obtained by The Associated Press.

Tramont is head of the AIDS research division of the National Institutes of Health, and he predicted in his testimony that the government will eventually create a vaccine. He testified in July in the whistleblower case of Dr. Jonathan Fishbein.

"If we look at the vaccine, HIV vaccine, we're going to have an HIV vaccine. It's not going to be made by a company," Tramont said. "They're dropping out like flies because there's no real incentive for them to do it. We have to do it."

"They will eventually -- if it works, they won't have to make that big investment. And they can make it and sell it and make a profit," he said.

Struggles for vaccines
An official of the group representing the country's major drug companies took sharp exception to Tramont's comments.

"That is simply not true. America's pharmaceutical research companies are firmly committed to HIV/AIDS vaccine research and development with 15 potential vaccines in development today," said Ken Johnson, senior vice president of PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

"Vaccine research is crucial to controlling the AIDS pandemic and our companies are well aware of the need to succeed in this vital area of science," Johnson said.

In an e-mail response for comment, Tramont said the HIV vaccine mirrors the history of other vaccines. "It is not just a HIV vaccine - it's all vaccines - that is why there was/is a shortage of flu vaccines," Tramont wrote.

The quest for an AIDS vaccine has been one of science's biggest disappointments despite billions of dollars and years of research. Part of the dilemma is that such a vaccine must work through the very immune system that AIDS compromises.

The failure in the last couple years of one of the more promising vaccine candidates has bred some frustration.

Hope delayed
The United Nations' top HIV/AIDS official acknowledged earlier this year at a conference that it was no longer realistic to hope that the world will meet its goal of halting and reversing the spread of the pandemic by 2015. A British delegate to that conference predicted it might take 20 years before such a vaccine is created.

The International AIDS Vaccines Initiative, a not-for-profit group that is pushing for an AIDS vaccine, said there are more than 30 vaccine candidates being tested mostly on a small scale in 19 counties, but it acknowledges many are pursuing a similar theory of science that may prove futile.

"If the hypothesis is proven incorrect, the pipeline of candidates now in trials will be rendered mostly irrelevant. Strong alternative hypotheses have been largely neglected," the group said.

IAVI estimates total annual spending on an AIDS vaccine is $682 million.

"This represents less than 1% of total spending on all health product development," IAVI said. "Private sector efforts amount to just $100 million annually. This is mainly due to the lack of incentives for the private sector to invest in an AIDS vaccine -- the science is difficult, and the developing countries that need a vaccine most are least able to pay."

 

[rama putri]

It doesn't confirm anything. The head of the NIH is stating his unsubstantiated opinion. It happens to be the opinion that most of the population (Americans) believe, but it's the same population that believe in intelligent design as well. Confirms nothing.

 

[Esco!]

Total and utter bullshit and I should know cause I worked in that industry for many years.
The drug companies could make tenfold if they had a vaccine for hiv.

This is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories thats out there.

 

[incognito]

Well.......DUH!!!!!!

 

[BiggieE]

I've always understood that HIV is a virus....sorta like the common cold.....and there is no cure for a virus.....the best we can hope for is a vaccine.....let's hope....

 

[souljax33]

Total and utter bullshit and I should know cause I worked in that industry for many years.
The drug companies could make tenfold if they had a vaccine for hiv.

This is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories thats out there.

Is not a conspiracy theory, drug companies just want to sell more drugs, they can profit more by not releasing a "cure" what would happen if cancer was cured?? what would all the cancer institutes, Oncologist and companies that manufacture radiation equipment do??

Just take a look at this..

http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/



THE CANCER INDUSTRY

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/18...002-5059435-8641634?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

 

[Eli]

There IS money in a cure, but not as much as in a control, or researching a cure or control.

 

[souljax33]

There IS money in a cure, but not as much as in a control, or researching a cure or control.

Yes!! there's more money in lifetime treatments, with a cure the money flow would stop.

Why do you think the FDA raids and goes after anyone that discover something that could cure something without the use of drugs?

 

[Esco!]

Yes!! there's more money in lifetime treatments, with a cure the money flow would stop.

Why do you think the FDA raids and goes after anyone that discover something that could cure something without the use of drugs?

Not quite true, remember how there was a vaccine for polio??

You can make a lot of money out of mandatory administration of vaccines to children. Charge $100 per HIV vaccine for every child born and you have a revolving cash cow.

 

[Esco!]

Yes!! there's more money in lifetime treatments, with a cure the money flow would stop.

Not true, if I discover a secret pill that cures all cancers I can then apply for a USPO patent and, if granted, I can charge any amount of money I want for the next 20 years (or until the patent expires).

So basically I can charge $500 per pill. Calculate that over say 1 million cancer patients in the U.S. per year alone and that works out to a half billion dollar profit per year.

Thats plenty of incentive

 

[souljax33]

Not quite true, remember how there was a vaccine for polio??

You can make a lot of money out of mandatory administration of vaccines to children. Charge $100 per HIV vaccine for every child born and you have a revolving cash cow.

Not true either, you can charge more than $100 with lifetime drug treatments( Cancer or aids) and you have a bigger cash cow, do you know how much aids drugs cost?? way more than $100.

Drug companies are not going to release a cure, $100 is nothing compared to what they make in lifetime treatments, $100 or even more isn't just a 1 week supply for an aids patient??

 

[souljax33]

Not true, if I discover a secret pill that cures all cancers I can then apply for a USPO patent and, if granted, I can charge any amount of money I want for the next 20 years (or until the patent expires).

So basically I can charge $500 per pill. Calculate that over say 1 million cancer patients in the U.S. per year alone and that works out to a half billion dollar profit per year.

Thats plenty of incentive

I understand your point but you don't get mine, let me ask you, why would a drug company release a "secret "pill to cure all cancers or AIDS if this "secret" pill only costs $500? I can make more money selling "treatment" pills during a lifetime, Cancer treatments and AIDS treatments cost WAYY MORE than $500.

The only realistic thing to make money in just a cure would be the equivalent to charge Hundreds of thousands of dollars per "secret" pill and you know that nobody is going to realistically being able to afford that, the solution?? lifetime treatments.

 

[Esco!]

Not true either, you can charge more than $100 with lifetime drug treatments( Cancer or aids) and you have a bigger cash cow, do you know how much aids drugs cost?? way more than $100.?

True but you have much fewer patients. If the govt orders mandatory HIV vaccines to all children when they turn 8 it will amount to much more money.

Anywho, I dont buy the "surpress a cure" theory cause if I own a rival company thats direct competition to the AIDS drug companies you'll bet your life I will bring my vaccine to the market.
If only to squash my competition.

 

[souljax33]

True but you have much fewer patients. If the govt orders mandatory HIV vaccines to all children when they turn 8 it will amount to much more money.

Anywho, I dont buy the "surpress a cure" theory cause if I own a rival company thats direct competition to the AIDS drug companies you'll bet your life I will bring my vaccine to the market.
If only to squash my competition.

Yeah but in order to bring out your "vaccine" and squash the competition you need to be FDA aproved! and you can bet that the FDA is not going to allow such a thing in our lifetime, there is a lot of $$$$ involved by treating diseases rather that curing them.

 

[Esco!]

Yeah but in order to bring out your "vaccine" and squash the competition you need to be FDA aproved! and you can bet that the FDA is not going to allow such a thing in our lifetime, there is a lot of $$$$ involved by treating diseases rather that curing them.

The FDA does not get any of the profits for the current Anti-hiv protease inhibitors

 

[stinkynuts]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study

The above link demonstrates that the government has purposely withheld treatment in the past to dying patients with syphilis. What makes it impossible for it to happen again, for different a different motive?

 

[souljax33]

The FDA does not get any of the profits for the current Anti-hiv protease inhibitors

You can bet they receive profits and also they receive millions everytime a new "miracle" drug is patented.

http://www.lef.org/fda/fdaban95.html

The FDA Ban of L-Tryptophan: Politics, Profits and Prozac
© All Rights Reserved

Posted on LEF April 6 1998



By: Dean Wolfe Manders, Ph.D.


This article first appeared in "Social Policy", Vol. 26, No. 2 Winter 1995. Dr. Manders has lectured and done extensive research on the medical politics of L-Tryptophan. The article also appeared in "Blazing Tattles" June 1996.
In the fall of 1989, the FDA recalled L-Tryptophan, an amino acid nutritional supplement, stating that it caused a rare and deadly flu-like condition (Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome / EMS). On March 22, 1990, the FDA banned the public sale dietary of L-Tryptophan completely. This ban continues today. On March 26, 1990, "Newsweek" featured a lead article praising the virtues of the anti-depressant drug Prozac. Its multi-color cover displayed a floating, gigantic green and white capsule of Prozac with the caption: "Prozac: A Breakthrough drug for Depression."

The fact that the FDA ban of L-Tryptophan and the Newsweek Prozac cover story occurred within four days of each other went unnoticed by both the media and the public. Yet, to those who understand the effective properties of L- Tryptophan and Prozac, the concurrence seems "unbelievably coincidental." The link here is the brain neurotransmitter serotonin---a biochemical nerve signal conductor. The action of Prozac and L-Tryptophan are both involved with serotonin, but in totally different ways.

Elevated levels of serotonin in the body often result in the relief of depression, as well as substantial reduction in pain sensitivity, anxiety and stress. Prozac, as well as other new anti-depressant drugs such as Paxil and Zoloft, attempt to enhance levels of serotonin by working on whatever amounts of it already exists in the body (these drugs are known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). None of these drugs, however produce serotonin. In contrast, ingested L-Tryptophan acts to produce serotonin, even in individuals who generate little serotonin of their own. The most effective way to elevate serotonin would be to use a serotonin producer rather than a serotonin enhancer.

The continuing FDA public ban of L-Tryptophan prevents popular access to this most effective serotonin producer. The millions of Americans who for decades safely have relied upon L-Tryptophan to relieve depression, anxiety and PMS, as well as to control pain and induce natural sleep, have been forced elsewhere for solutions.

-------------------------

 

[souljax33]

With COX-2 decision, no longer any doubt about FDA corruption and U.S. drug racket

http://www.newstarget.com/004728.html

With COX-2 decision, no longer any doubt about FDA corruption and U.S. drug racket


Following the death of as many as 60,000 Americans from COX-2 inhibitors (source: British Medical Journal, author Dr. David Graham, FDA drug safety researcher), an FDA advisory panel has now voted to allow the drugs to return to the market with full FDA safety approval. The fact that a single COX-2 drug has reportedly killed more Americans than the entire Vietnam War is apparently not sufficient for the FDA to characterize it as unsafe.
With this decision, a "safety approval" by the FDA has now become meaningless. If the agency can put its stamp of public safety approval on a drug that has killed tens of thousands of Americans and that was removed from the market by its own manufacturer following the revelation of studies showing alarming increases in heart attack risk, then what, pray tell, could possibly be the FDA's definition of a dangerous drug?

For the FDA to consider a drug dangerous, it apparently has to kill more than 60,000 Americans. I'm curious what threshold must be reached before the FDA actually does its job and seeks to protect the U.S. public. Do 250,000 people have to die before the FDA calls a drug unsafe? 500,000 people? How about a million people?

There can no longer be any doubt whatsoever about the FDA's true purpose. Regardless of what the agency publicly states, when it comes time to make key decisions about the safety of U.S. consumers, the FDA will side with drug companies every time. We've seen it time and time again: with the FDA's reluctance to pull obviously dangerous drugs off the market in a timely fashion (Rezulin, for example), with the FDA's attempts to silence its own drug safety scientists (censorship of Dr. David Graham, for example), and with the FDA's collusion with drug companies in suppressing clinical trials and other forms of evidence that raise safety questions about prescription drugs. Corruption runs deep at the FDA, it seems.

This decision with Vioxx and other COX-2 inhibitors was a defining moment for the U.S. Fraud and Drug Administration. It was a moment where the agency could have sided with public safety and held fast to a position of responsibility and ethics. Instead, it chose to favor drug company profits and put its stamp of approval on a class of drugs that is arguably the most deadly drugs ever to hit the open market.

A sane, ethical FDA would have not only banned COX-2 inhibitors outright, it would have put an end to direct-to-consumer advertising that ultimately led to the over-hyping and over-prescribing of these painkillers in the first place. Most people taking COX-2 inhibitors don't even need them. They would be better off with simple over-the-counter painkillers or, better yet, natural health treatments like nutrition, herbal remedies and supplements that work far better than prescription drugs for stopping arthritis pain (and without all the negative side effects). Astaxanthin supplements, for one, greatly ease arthritis pain. So do whole food concentrates made from cherries, blackberries and other fruits. There are dozens of other natural health strategies that ease pain as well.

I find this fascinating. When the FDA is attacking herbs and nutritional supplements, they will claim there's not enough evidence to prove they are safe. But when it comes to prescription drugs, the agency says there's not enough evidence to prove they're dangerous. All drugs approved by the FDA, it seems, are deemed safe until proven deadly. And even when proven deadly, they apparently aren't deadly enough to warrant banning them.




Continue reading the above link....

 

[james t kirk]

Not quite true, remember how there was a vaccine for polio??

You can make a lot of money out of mandatory administration of vaccines to children. Charge $100 per HIV vaccine for every child born and you have a revolving cash cow.

The vaccine for polio was discovered by Salk while he was working at the University of Pittsburgh in a government funded lab. He began his work while still a student. That kind of research has largely been eliminated by the large pharma companies doing their own research and so called public/private ventures which is a nice way of saying, the government puts up the facilities and some cash but the pharmas run it and make a profit by it.

BTW, Salk never patented his vaccine figuring that it wouldn't be right to profit off it. That kind of thinking would get you shot today.

There is no money in a vaccine, there is no money in a cure.

There is LOTS of money in making you swallow a beaker full of pills every day for the rest of your sorry life.

 

[Esco!]

There is no money in a vaccine, there is no money in a cure.

There is LOTS of money in making you swallow a beaker full of pills every day for the rest of your sorry life.

LOL.....that may be true but remember there is both a treatment (interferon) and a vaccine for Heptatitis B.

Hep B will also kill you in 10 years or so