Will there be a cure for AIDS?

[Deja Q]

Poll question: Will there be a cure for AIDS?

http://www.gay.com/health/hiv/?sernum=2764

:scared:

[camero]

1. No

I don't think they'll have a cure for anything for the masses. Too much money in treatment. Now for the wealthy it will be quite a different story.

[sir_captain]

4. By definition

it will be inexpensive if the masses are using it. If there is a drug that is effective against AIDS, there is no particular reason that it would be any more expensive to produce than any other synthetically produced drug.

[camero]

5. As long as the system is for profit

There will be much more profit in treatment than in cures. Cures are only used in a limited amount of office visits. Treatment keeps you coming back for more. Simple concept really.

[Deja Q]

7. Exactly. There is no cynicism in my wording *at all*.

Ourt society is wrong. And if people think I'm cynical because I point out the truth, then that's their loss. :cry:

On the plus side, peak oil is going to end our brave new world within 5 years, quite probably less... I think, in the long run, very few of us will have anything to worry about.

[sir_captain]

10. i meant no offense

but seriously now, what's the point of asking a question if you already know "the truth?" i don't really see the need for you to attack me simply because i disagreed very slightly with you...

i don't disagree with you that the medical system is largely for profit, and there are a lot of things wrong with that, obviously. but the idea that doctors don't cure people because they can have them come back for more expensive treatments is cynical (yes, it is) and not, in my opinion, terribly accurate.

[sir_captain]

8. ok

well, that's a completely different point from the one that you made in your first post. also, the reason "cures" are rarely used is because there are very few "cures" for anything! until antibiotics came along, there were basically none. we still can't do a solitary thing about any virus, other than the few that can be treated prophylactically with vaccines. treatment, 99% of the time, is the only option.

anyway, see my response to mrslayer for the rest of my thoughts on this subject

[camero]

18. No, quite the same point

The only difference would be for the wealthy who they feel are more "needed" by society. These "cures" would not even be told to the masses but kept secret.

[sir_captain]

19. ah, i see...

ok, well, i'm not sure i can agree with you on this one, but it is indeed the same point...

[sir_captain]

2. I think the last choice is overly cynical

"Maybe there is, but our medical industry gets far more profit out of prolonging life with repeated treatments than making a one-time cure."

Prolonging life is actually extremely expensive, and not just for the patient. Hospitals would much rather cure someone than have to give them a bed...

Not to mention that anyone who has a patent for an AIDS cure/vaccine will make oodles of money

But yes, I think we'll come up with a cure eventually. Knowledge of genetics is really still in its infancy, and understanding of recombinant DNA properties is even more immature. Humans are amazing, and tons of money is going into this--I have faith we'll get there.

[Deja Q]

9. That's a good point, but

they are more inclined to keep you hooked when the opportunity exists.

I don't think what I said is cynical at all. It's grounded, well rounded, down to earth TRUTH. Unfortunately. Our society IS profit-based... Money is what matters.

[sir_captain]

12. i sort of agree

"Our society IS profit-based... Money is what matters." Lord knows I agree with you about that...

although, as i've said, i actually think the biggest profit in this particular case will be in a cure, rather than any prolonged treatment

[MrSlayer]

3. They only make money if you stay sick.

I think there are more important diseases we should be looking at first but the principle remains the same. They make more money just keeping you alive than curing you.

[sir_captain]

6. Are you saying this about

the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs, or the hospitals?

Because the HMOs make money when people are not sick, the hospitals make money when they don't have lots of really sick people in the beds using really expensive medical equipment.

As for the pharmaceutical companies, well, I think you're sort of right. But like I said in an earlier post--the company that has the patent on a working AIDS treatment will make more money than one can even imagine.

[MrSlayer]

14. Hospitals charge you $20 for an aspirin.

And room rates are ridiculously high, they're more than happy to pass the cost plus more on to you. They'd much rather be at capacity than have empty beds. HMO's never lose money, they just make more if they collect from you while they are healthy and they raise their rates to offset claims. Insurance companies are scum. And the pharmaceutical companies are not going for the one-time big money from a cure, they are looking for repeat business. The best way to do that is to make drugs that relieve symptoms but do not cure you completely.

[sir_captain]

16. I agree that insurance companies are scum

but i still don't understand how they're going to make more money subsidizing expensive drugs constantly...

[camero]

20. Hospitals and pharmaceuticals

Only make money when people are sick. No patient in the bed means no money.

[sir_captain]

21. it's not that simple...

of course hospitals need patients. but they don't necessarily want deeply, chronically ill patients who require hundreds of thousands of dollars of procedures and therapy each month. they want appendectomies and pneumonia and things like that.

[camero]

22. Major surgeries and chemo

More money is made on this than anything in medicine. Except for chronic illnesses which makes individual doctors richer.

[sir_captain]

23. you have an overly simplistic view of the medical system

yes, pharmaceutical companies make money off of chemo and other drugs, and surgeons make money from doing surgeries, but almost EVERY major hospital in the country is in the red. they are LOSING money. every time an MRI is run it costs thousands of dollars--that money doesn't come from nowhere, not to mention the tens of millions of dollars that it cost in the first place. there is a lot fucked up in the medical system at the moment--but other than the insurance companies and a certain percentage of specialists, medicine is not a super way to make loads of money anymore.

[camero]

24. I have a vast view of the system

from being a patient my whole life. Hearing loss since 7. Diabetes since 32. Also from working for my hearing doctor and cleaning her million dollar house. There is lots of money in medicine. Too much IMHO.

Edit: and that same MRI cost $750 in an outpatient mobile site. The going rate for an MRI is $1500 I've been told.

[sir_captain]

25. there we agree

on the other hand, i work in a clinic for people without insurance, so i can tell you that the system isn't totally broken :-)

[camero]

26. As a patient in a clinic

I notice the care is much less than with insurance. Just one example is I am now taking insulin based on my BS as opposed to having it done on the insulin to carb ratio. Thus making it harder to control blood sugar. That also comes down to money. Only strict regulation of the system will cure it.

[sir_captain]

27. i'm all for mucho regulation

but there's nothing wrong with the care in my clinic. some of the best docs in the world spend a lot of time in here, and this is one of the best hospitals in the world to boot.

[camero]

28. Nothing against the people in your clinic

but the fact of the matter is that with the costs not being regulated the care is also rationed. That is a money issue. I haven't seen a good hospital since John Hopkins in the 70's and doctors are not as inquisitive today as in years prior. When I see an Endocrinologist in a clinic then I may say it's good but not until.

Of course there is a real difference between private charity care and the local health clinic. They do get the best doctors I agree.

[sir_captain]

30. i hear you on those specialists...

i'm going into the field myself, and at least at the moment, i'm leaning towards primary care...

[FloridaPat]

11. There has never been a cure for a virus. That's why we still get

colds.

[sir_captain]

13. true...a vaccine is a billion times more likely

and a lot of forward movement is being made on the subject

[flaminbats]

15. I think the options available shall dramatically improve in the future..

but AIDS is much like Diabetes, Cancer, and Hepatitis C. No cures for these conditions exist, but there are a variety of treatments.

[sir_captain]

17. interesting analogy

Diabetes, for the most part, is not caused by pathogens, though, so it's not really a great comparison. Hepatitis C is an excellent one, however. Hopefully we'll get to work on it too...it doesn't get that much press here, but it's an enormous problem in developing countries like India.

[dolo amber]

29. As far as Hep C goes...there in no *cure*...

there IS however, extremely effective treatment...if you have an extra $18,000/yr. lying around...:eyes:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/12/162243.shtml

As for AIDS, Chris Rock said it best: : "They ain't ever gonna cure AIDS. They can't even cure athlete's foot. It's because there ain't no money in the cure. There's money in the medicine."

:(

[flaminbats]

31. Diabetes and Hep C do have some similarities.

Hepatitis C damages the function of the liver and immune system. Diabetes is caused when the immune system of an individual destroys the insulin producing Beta Cells in the pancreas, thus ending the body's ability to convert sugar into energy.

Even with Diabetes, the most recent challenge is to implant protected Beta Cells which cannot be destroyed by the body's white blood cells. In the other case it is a challenge of suppressing the immune system to limit the damage that is done to the Liver cells.

[Lisa0825]

32. Having worked in medical research for 10 years before changing careers....

maybe I am an eternal optimist, but working with the docs I have known, and knowing how compassionate most of them are, and how intensely competetive they are, I believe the docs in research will fight their best to find a cure. The pharmaceutical companies do sponsor a lot of reasearch for treatments, but in the major teaching hospitals, much of the research is grant-based, from private donors, the NIH, etc.

I am not sure if there will ever be a vaccine, and as stated above, viruses are very difficult to treat. However, I have one friend who has been HIV+ for 20 years, and another for 14. One major change over the decades has been the view of the disease as chronic, rather than terminal. Advances will continue.