Conspiracy theory or fact?

  • seelsa73

    Posts: 19

    May 03, 2012 5:14 PM GMT
    My bf thinks that even if a cure for HIV/AIDS were to be discovered, no one would know about it and no one will get it because the drug companies would never give up the amount of money they get from people on the pills. I disagree. What are your thoughts on the subject?
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    May 03, 2012 7:13 PM GMT
    It is tempting to think the drug companies would like to sell us their (already developed) wares indefinitely, so might not be strongly motivated to find 'cures' as such; rather, drugs to endlessly 'manage' illnesses like HIV, or conditions like diabetes, obesity, and arthritis, etc.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 10:31 PM GMT
    Here's one take on it:

    http://www.alternet.org/health/155170/6_Kinds_of_Pills_Big_Pharma_Tries_to_Get_You_Hooked_on_for_Life/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 10:38 PM GMT
    The cure will be made as expensive as a 25 year span on meds. They won't have to give up anything.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 10:40 PM GMT
    Just because there's a cure doesn't mean it stops the disease.

    There are cures for all kinds of things that people still spread around.

    In fact, I suspect that with a cure available, people will become even less responsible about their sexual safety.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 10:40 PM GMT
    They would ALL have to be in on the conspiracy, and I think they are too competitive with each for that. The company that finds the cure first, or a preventative vaccine, is going to get insanely rich. Even if they price it moderately, vaccinating a huge portion of the human population is going to be very profitable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 10:42 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    TheLordYourGod saidThe cure will be made as expensive as a 25 year span on meds. They won't have to give up anything.

    The Lord has returned!
    It must be time for the rapture.
    Good. Perhaps the troll du jour has been evacuated with the Saints. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 11:00 PM GMT
    Yeah, you're talking about an allied, global conspiracy. You have to keep in mind that it's not just the USA developing medicines and treatments for illnesses and disorders - other countries have their own teams of scientists on board. Research also happens at the non-government level - often in university and private research institutions as well.

    And in this day and age of social media and internet, word would get out. I just don't believe you could hide something like that...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2012 12:15 AM GMT
    Yeah the drug companies won't want to release a cure because then they won't have people being a constant buyer of their drugs. It sucks to think about people care more about money than saving lives...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2012 12:33 AM GMT
    DudeInNOVA saidThey would ALL have to be in on the conspiracy, and I think they are too competitive with each for that. The company that finds the cure first, or a preventative vaccine, is going to get insanely rich. Even if they price it moderately, vaccinating a huge portion of the human population is going to be very profitable.


    But, collectively, they can make even more money on treatment, even while competing. Making a cure would only sever a source of revenue flow which would be bad for the competitors and the company who generated a cure.

    There's simply no significant financial incentive to create a cure over a treatment. If there was, we'd see it already, like with flu "vaccines" that you have to take yearly in order to maintain conditional immunity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2012 12:42 AM GMT
    TheLordYourGod saidThe cure will be made as expensive as a 25 year span on meds. They won't have to give up anything.


    Hello God, it's me Margaret.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2012 12:53 AM GMT
    seelsa73 saidMy bf thinks that even if a cure for HIV/AIDS were to be discovered, no one would know about it and no one will get it because the drug companies would never give up the amount of money they get from people on the pills. I disagree. What are your thoughts on the subject?



    You are talking about an industry that has done everything it can to keep insulin from being sold as generics. Nearly every kind of insulin is well past the time the drug is protected from being made by competitors as a generic, but the big drug companies will not allow it and keep the FDA from ever approving generic insulin. So those without insurance and insurance companies keep having to pay full price for drugs for one of the costliest diseases out there. It also means those with insurance have to pay higher copays. So it would not surprise me in the least if drug companies would keep trying to profit on HIV if a cure were found.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2012 3:31 AM GMT
    Animus saidicon_evil.gifBut, collectively, they can make even more money on treatment, even while competing. Making a cure would only sever a source of revenue flow which would be bad for the competitors and the company who generated a cure.

    There's simply no significant financial incentive to create a cure over a treatment. If there was, we'd see it already, like with flu "vaccines" that you have to take yearly in order to maintain conditional immunity.


    I don't think companies care much what they can make collectively. They each want to make the largest profit possible at the expensive of each other. The first company to create a cure, assuming it's a company at all and not a private institution, is going to get extremely rich while taking all the profits that the other companies would be making.

    We haven't seen a cure because of the difficulties in targeting viruses with drugs. The reason you have to get a flu vaccines each year is because the viruses keep mutating and different strains become more prevalent from one year to the next. There has been recent progress in creating a vaccine that targets any strain of the flu virus, but it's probably years away from being put into production.

    Here's a link to a Wikipedia article on antiviral drugs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiviral_drug

    Take it with a grain of salt, of course, but it has some interesting information on the limitations of antivirals and vaccines. There's even a sentence about a new method of treating viruses called DRACO, which in theory could treat all viruses. That means no more colds, flu, HIV, hepatitis, etc. EVER. It probably won't pan out. These things rarely do. But every step we take, we learn more about how to treat diseases.

    It's easy for people to make paranoid accusations of conspiracies because they don't require any real proof to back up their claims. They only have to make a few suggestive statements, and people who want to believe there is something sinister going on will hop right on board.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2012 3:54 AM GMT
    seelsa73 saidMy bf thinks that even if a cure for HIV/AIDS were to be discovered, no one would know about it and no one will get it because the drug companies would never give up the amount of money they get from people on the pills. I disagree. What are your thoughts on the subject?


    Merck was purchasing the rights to a Scientist's discovery at the University of Texas back in 1999 around the same time they found how to splice an unlimited sized DNA strand. They were able to reproduce a cell that was naturally immune to HIV because of a missing receptor. The issue at the time in going to stage 2 trials was that the cell would have to be based upon each individuals own DNA. Nevertheless the study was suppose to be continued, but for whatever reason was never heard of again.I don't know if Merck ever bought into it or not.

    I've followed MANY trials throughout my 14 years of being infected and will admit I have seen some pretty sketchy choices that have been made. If you look at any drug company, especially the extent they will demeanor themselves to market, you might find it is not as integral as it should be.

    I wouldn't venture to say we are simply targets of some experiment being done by a mad Scientist, but I would agree there is foul play. Then again, it's business; what can you expect?
  • jim_sf

    Posts: 2094

    May 08, 2012 10:47 PM GMT
    I believe that Big Pharma will crush an HIV/AIDS cure just like iron lung manufacturers crushed the polio vaccine.

    Oh, wait.

    Seriously, though: while money is undoubtedly a strong motivator, it is not the only one. Altruism and fame are also strong motivators; the person who discovers or leaks such a cure will save tens of millions of lives, and will be famous for (literally) CENTURIES. And even though some people can be bought, it only takes one person who can't to make such a conspiracy come crashing down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2012 10:59 PM GMT
    ^^ Exactly,
    Pharmaceutical companies are chasing that fame just as much as any individual. don't underestimate the amount of profit in holding the title of "the company that cured AIDS"
  • jim_sf

    Posts: 2094

    May 08, 2012 11:41 PM GMT
    mayBbignow said
    seelsa73 saidMy bf thinks that even if a cure for HIV/AIDS were to be discovered, no one would know about it and no one will get it because the drug companies would never give up the amount of money they get from people on the pills. I disagree. What are your thoughts on the subject?


    I agree.
    And ill tell you why people would disagree. They think it isnt plausible. They feel if the issue has been exhausted, its been exhausted.

    Ill tell you this, up to 25 million people get HIV a year.
    And Pharmaceuticals is a billion-dollar industry.
    You have to spend hundreds if not thousands on just one person so they can stay base level healthy.

    Theyre not messing that cash cow up.


    All it takes is one uncooperative person to mess it up.

    Also, there's a remarkably strong financial incentive towards a cure for the governments and health insurance providers who spend money on ARV medications. Whose incentive is stronger?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 09, 2012 9:50 AM GMT
    mayBbignow said
    seelsa73 saidMy bf thinks that even if a cure for HIV/AIDS were to be discovered, no one would know about it and no one will get it because the drug companies would never give up the amount of money they get from people on the pills. I disagree. What are your thoughts on the subject?


    I agree.
    And ill tell you why people would disagree. They think it isnt plausible. They feel if the issue has been exhausted, its been exhausted.

    Ill tell you this, up to 25 million people get HIV a year.
    And Pharmaceuticals is a billion-dollar industry.
    You have to spend hundreds if not thousands on just one person so they can stay base level healthy.

    Theyre not messing that cash cow up.


    Woah there, I think your numbers are a bit off . Worldwide in 2010 there were 2.7 million newly infected people, not 25 million.

  • dfrourke

    Posts: 1062

    May 23, 2012 9:05 PM GMT
    Interesting argument.

    We must also remind ourselves that many of the vaccines developed were by researchers at universities. Big pharma may be researching and improving medicines, but we also have research universities tackling this issue as well.

    The polio vaccine was developed by Salk at the University of Pittsburgh. Although the money can be co-mingled, some of this money is also in the form of research grants. Failed attempts at vaccines also bread new directions for treatment.

    I'm an optimist at heart as being cynical is just too dark of a place to live for me. We'll get there. There are always other diseases and medicines that will present challenges for big pharma and their stockholders.

    - David icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 9:08 PM GMT
    Stuttershock said
    mayBbignow said
    seelsa73 saidMy bf thinks that even if a cure for HIV/AIDS were to be discovered, no one would know about it and no one will get it because the drug companies would never give up the amount of money they get from people on the pills. I disagree. What are your thoughts on the subject?


    I agree.
    And ill tell you why people would disagree. They think it isnt plausible. They feel if the issue has been exhausted, its been exhausted.

    Ill tell you this, up to 25 million people get HIV a year.
    And Pharmaceuticals is a billion-dollar industry.
    You have to spend hundreds if not thousands on just one person so they can stay base level healthy.

    Theyre not messing that cash cow up.


    Woah there, I think your numbers are a bit off . Worldwide in 2010 there were 2.7 million newly infected people, not 25 million.



    Yea I was gonna say haha 25 million is 1/12th the American population.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 9:11 PM GMT
    Never minding that even if a cure for HIV surface tomorrow, stupid fuckers would still be passing HPV and getting/giving anal warts and the Hep and the Herp around to each other.

    Not especially deadly dread diseases, mind you... but Big Pharma's #1 concern is Big Pharma, and not necessarily making people better. Or smarter.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    May 24, 2012 1:38 PM GMT
    As noted above by other people, pharmaceutical companies don't tend to really work on vaccines unless the vaccine represents a major boon (IE the flu vaccine). In the case of HIV, a vaccine may not be profitable (would it be once a year...once every x years...? Not known yet...also, the pills bring in a lot of money). The good thing about vaccines like these, is that universities are working hard on them and they, while still in it for profit, are also in it for the notoriety and the nobel prizes ;). There are currently multiple HIV vaccine trials going on across the US at this time... Hopefully they turn out better than the last big HIV vaccine trial..
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    May 24, 2012 7:39 PM GMT
    Sustenance said
    seelsa73 saidMy bf thinks that even if a cure for HIV/AIDS were to be discovered, no one would know about it and no one will get it because the drug companies would never give up the amount of money they get from people on the pills. I disagree. What are your thoughts on the subject?


    Merck was purchasing the rights to a Scientist's discovery at the University of Texas back in 1999 around the same time they found how to splice an unlimited sized DNA strand. They were able to reproduce a cell that was naturally immune to HIV because of a missing receptor. The issue at the time in going to stage 2 trials was that the cell would have to be based upon each individuals own DNA. Nevertheless the study was suppose to be continued, but for whatever reason was never heard of again.I don't know if Merck ever bought into it or not.

    What you are talking about is the CCR5 receptor by which HIV can infect the macrophages- white blood cells that digest foreign bodies. They found that a large majority of the HIV+ nonprogressors who eliminate the virus in the beginning stages in such that viral counts remain low while CD4 counts remain normal carry mutations in this CCR5 receptor.
    Eliminating the CCR5 receptor is not a viable solution for a living human being.
    Vaccines which can bind to the CCR5 receptor so that HIV can not bind to it and infect cells have not been successful. However several drugs which are used are. Another problems is that this is not the only receptor which HIV uses to infect cells.

    I don't know about the business about Merck involvement though.

    There are so many other vaccines available for other debilitating disease with life long effects like hepatitis (which is a very recent vaccine an expensive disease) that have effects similar to those of HIV/AIDS on population, that could bring in big money for Big Pharma that the Big Pharma conspiracy theory doesn't hold true.

    The thing about vaccines is that a disease like HIV, along with worms and malaria, creates huge societal problems in developing countries, not just in countries where treatment is easily accessible. Even if an effective vaccine were to be created at a greater cost, WHO and CDC would probably offset the cost so the vaccine could be used worldwide. Furthermore, fast mutations in HIV have made vaccine development difficult.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2012 7:57 PM GMT
    commoncoll said
    Sustenance said
    seelsa73 saidMy bf thinks that even if a cure for HIV/AIDS were to be discovered, no one would know about it and no one will get it because the drug companies would never give up the amount of money they get from people on the pills. I disagree. What are your thoughts on the subject?


    Merck was purchasing the rights to a Scientist's discovery at the University of Texas back in 1999 around the same time they found how to splice an unlimited sized DNA strand. They were able to reproduce a cell that was naturally immune to HIV because of a missing receptor. The issue at the time in going to stage 2 trials was that the cell would have to be based upon each individuals own DNA. Nevertheless the study was suppose to be continued, but for whatever reason was never heard of again.I don't know if Merck ever bought into it or not.

    What you are talking about is the CCR5 receptor by which HIV can infect the macrophages- white blood cells that digest foreign bodies. They found that a large majority of the HIV+ nonprogressors who eliminate the virus in the beginning stages in such that viral counts remain low while CD4 counts remain normal carry mutations in this CCR5 receptor.
    Eliminating the CCR5 receptor is not a viable solution for a living human being.
    Vaccines which can bind to the CCR5 receptor so that HIV can not bind to it and infect cells have not been successful. However several drugs which are used are. Another problems is that this is not the only receptor which HIV uses to infect cells.

    I don't know about the business about Merck involvement though.

    There are so many other vaccines available for other debilitating disease with life long effects like hepatitis (which is a very recent vaccine an expensive disease) that have effects similar to those of HIV/AIDS on population, that could bring in big money for Big Pharma that the Big Pharma conspiracy theory doesn't hold true.

    The thing about vaccines is that a disease like HIV, along with worms and malaria, creates huge societal problems in developing countries, not just in countries where treatment is easily accessible. Even if an effective vaccine were to be created at a greater cost, WHO and CDC would probably offset the cost so the vaccine could be used worldwide. Furthermore, fast mutations in HIV have made vaccine development difficult.


    Actually, gene therapy is progressing on this issue. It is possible to harvest CD4 cells from a patient and modify the genetic sequence to suppress the CCR5 receptor. A company in California, Sangamo, is working on this, along with researchers at UPenn.

    http://www.thebodypro.com/content/66243/sangamo-presents-new-clinical-data-at-croi-2012-de.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 11:08 PM GMT
    Conspiracy, but
    This is exactly the thing I would expect from a large corporation,