AIDS: Will there ever be a cure?
The reason this subject has a great deal of interest for me is that a close relative is infected with HIV. When reading news on this subject it?s all about new meds capable of ?increasing life quality? off those infected with the virus, the cure is nowhere near in sight it seems. Of course it?s only us in the western world who have got access to those expensive treatments.
In Afrika we?re talking death tolls in 10's of percents of the population in some areas. Not only won?t they afford the meds, in some areas they don?t even know how to use a clock, essential to successful treatment. It?s essential as the meds have to be taken at specific intervals.
What do you guys think? Will science find a permanent cure or are we facing 100?s of millions of deaths because of this virus in the years to come?
It?s also worth mentioning, that despite the horrible situation in the 3rd world, more money are put into Alzheimer research than HIV research. The rich and elderly are more concerned about Alzheimer than AIDS and that's where the largest bulk of the money comes from
In Afrika we?re talking death tolls in 10's of percents of the population in some areas. Not only won?t they afford the meds, in some areas they don?t even know how to use a clock, essential to successful treatment. It?s essential as the meds have to be taken at specific intervals.
What do you guys think? Will science find a permanent cure or are we facing 100?s of millions of deaths because of this virus in the years to come?
It?s also worth mentioning, that despite the horrible situation in the 3rd world, more money are put into Alzheimer research than HIV research. The rich and elderly are more concerned about Alzheimer than AIDS and that's where the largest bulk of the money comes from
Comments
Will there be a cure for HIV? Maybe. At the rate the damm thing mutates it may be that a "cure" will come by attacking it in a way different from the ones we usually use for viruses. Perhaps gene therapy. The way HIV enters and infects a T-cell is by using two different cytokine receptors normally used in cell signaling. A sub-population of people has been identified who lack these receptors, and hence are immune to HIV. The lack of receptors is presumably not an issue because the cytokines also use other receptors, hence there's some redundancy. Using gene therapy to knock out the gene for this receptor would essentially bar the door to HIV by removing the whole door. No lock to pick if the lock ain't there in the first place. But gene therapy is still such an experimental field anyway. It will be a LONG time before we see an option like that.
It?s also worth mentioning, that despite the horrible situation in the 3rd world, more money are put into Alzheimer research than HIV research. The rich and elderly are more concerned about Alzheimer than AIDS and that's where the largest bulk of the money comes from
well, that and the fact that governments won't decide that they need Alzheimer's drugs and decide to take them/create them without paying the drug companies for it. i would say that's the largest factor.
what's the point of spending billions on researching AIDS drugs when you won't get paid when you finally find one that works?
Originally posted by alcimedes
well, that and the fact that governments won't decide that they need
what's the point of spending billions on researching AIDS drugs when you won't get paid when you finally find one that works?
This is the real problem actually. I just don't think we'll get a breakthrough until government money are put into this. I'm talking huge amount of money from governments all over the world. Will this happen? I don't think so, not in the near future.
Rather I see a combination of drugs and radiation treatment to slow it down.
I mean how long have we been saying that cancer can be beaten...well it hasn't. Sure progress has been made and many lives have been extended through new forms of treatment...but cancer is still around.
Sometimes I wonder how with all the brilliant minds in all the world, we're still at the mercy of diseases.
but then that would be someone who's truly cynical.
Originally posted by VanDeWaals
The sad fact is that drug research IS biased towards diseases of the more affluent. Look at Viagra. ...
They found Viagra by mistake.
You're attempt at class warfare and drug development is a bit of a flop.
Have the cured the common cold? No. Virus are hard to crack so prevention is still the best medicine.
Many money is invested in reserch, it would be largely overexagerrated to said the contrary.
As Scott said it's very hard to crack virus, only a few examples exist like the Zovirax and Herpes virus one or two. And in this latter case it did not destroy the latencie viruses who exist in the nerves.
However i think that they will find a cure of Aids before they can cure all forms of cancers. Some cancers are cure, but not at a 100 % rate.
Originally posted by Scott
They found Viagra by mistake.
You're attempt at class warfare and drug development is a bit of a flop.
Have the cured the common cold? No. Virus are hard to crack so prevention is still the best medicine.
The fact of the matter is that research into new antibiotics (which we need) has languished because bacterial infections were seen to be not as much of a threat, while stuff like Viagra (which yes, was discovered by accident during research into a treatment for heart disease) has tended to be the big money makers. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "affluent". Rather, the focus has been on treatments for maladies that are more First World-centric, if you will. For example, the current excitement over finding a treatment for obesity. Now, there are some people who NEED something like this...people who really ARE morbidly obese. However, it will no doubt be marketed toward anyone who needs to lose a couple pounds. That's where the cash is.
At the end of the day, the cost to get a new drug from initial discovery to market is about $850 million (US). That doesn't count all the ones that crap out in animal or clinical trials and amount to nothing (basically money down the drain). So the drug companies NEED to have these cash cow drugs. Hopefully, the profits realized from this drugs will help boost the research into AIDS. It's being worked on, no doubt, but as it has been mentioned, all the treatments right now are to contain it, not cure it. And many of these are loosing effectiveness as the virus mutates. It will be a very long road, but I think that much of the genomic data that has surfaced in the last couple years will be a big help in getting closer. Genomics will be especially helpful in treating cancer (which is basically a genetic disease, i.e. a mutation in genes which normally regulate cell division).
Originally posted by Anders
"class warfare", "anti-americanism" and "anti-semitism" seems to be the only words nessesary to examine 95% of the issues raised at AO.
re there any cures for the above ? ( joke )
Getting back on track, Aids & the 3rd world truly makes me weep..
Originally posted by alcimedes
the truly cynical would say it's because the drug companies make a hell of a lot more money of drugs to extend and sustain people who are sick rather than actually cure the disease....
but then that would be someone who's truly cynical.
The conspirasist might go further and suggest that a cure for both cancer and AIDS already exists.
Originally posted by Matsu
There's already a very inexpensive cure for AIDS, but for some reason it isn't a popular perscription: discipline.
And...?
Originally posted by Matsu
There's already a very inexpensive cure for AIDS, but for some reason it isn't a popular perscription: discipline.
i have cut my hands with the scalpel two times during the last week : if the person is infected and that i caught aids, is your unpopular prescription will help me ?
A study was made about blood edge incident : a surgeon is wounded one time per month : scalpel or needles with bloody material.
Prevention (condom) is important in matter of aid, but i know some people including me, who did not always protect himself while having sex. It was the first time i had sexual relations i was a little drunk and was surprised to go to bed with a girl
Originally posted by ena
Weellllll Anders, imagine we did the same thing to AIDS victims as we did with SARS victims.
It has no medical interest to isolate patients suffering from aids, at the contrary of Sars. i will shake the hand of a people of suffering of aids (and i have done it several times) but i will not meet someone suffering from SARS.
The only way to have aids is by blood transmission or via sexual intercourse, SARS is transmetted via aeral, it's all a different matter.
I'm not trying to insist on a prudish outlook, married monogamy and that's it, though it would be very difficult for AIDS to spread at all in such a scenario. Sex is also an important part of human relations, but having seen what I've seen in high-schools and colleges, I have to comment. When promiscuity is rampant, as it is in Africa BTW, people are at exponentially greater risk. Mebbe you have a handful of partners in a lifetime, and that's one level of risk, and then you take some populations where people have a handful of partners in a year/month/week and those are altogether in another class of risk.
People need to be more careful with themselves, it's really just that simple.
In this case, though I am loath to do it, Ben Franklin's an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is an accurate point. Yet a vaccine would have to be made for each subtype of virus, and I dont think that an universal vaccine will be discovered...