HIV Cure Months away

• pmoney25

  

  Of Course Magic Johnson bought the cure twenty years ago.
  
  In all reality, you really don't hear much about Aids/HIV anymore, at least not in America.
  
  
  http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/health/130428/hiv-cure-aids-danish-dna-treatment
• SaltsmanCody

  no more condoms!
• HitsRus

  

  lulz...I opened the link and my anti virus picked up and removed a virus. LOL... a virus in an AIDS thread.
• Midstate01

  

  HitsRus;1441086 wrote:lulz...I opened the link and my anti virus picked up and removed a virus. LOL... a virus in an AIDS thread.

  
  Its probably the cody dude. Hes a virus, pure cancer.
• SaltsmanCody

  Midstate01;1441088 wrote:Its probably the cody dude. Hes a virus, pure cancer.

  
• HitsRus

  

  glad my computer had a condom on!
• Tiernan

  Why are all "miracle cures" always being discovered by Danish, Swedish, Finnish...etc. scientists? My guess is because they don't really exist just like this pure BS story doesn't.
• friendfromlowry

  ccrunner609;1441683 wrote:funny thing is......the cure for HIV was there all along. The government made the virus to kill of gays and drug users. Made the cure just in case it got out of hand and important people got it.

  I suppose it was appearing in Great Britain, Uganda, Haiti, etc. at the same time because the government hates them, also. It's a shame you're an educator and have such outlandish theories.
• GoPens

  

  ccrunner609;1441683 wrote:funny thing is......the cure for HIV was there all along. The government made the virus to kill of gays and drug users. Made the cure just in case it got out of hand and important people got it.

  Please tell me you aren't serious.
• brutus161

  

  ccrunner609;1441683 wrote:funny thing is......the cure for HIV was there all along. The government made the virus to kill of gays and drug users. Made the cure just in case it got out of hand and important people got it.

  
  This might be the most ludicrous thing you have ever put on this site, and you type some pretty stupid shit.
• tk421

  

  Maybe I'm too fucking cynical, but I don't see a cure becoming commonplace because the pharmaceutical companies make more money from monthly prescriptions than they would a cure, they have no interest in curing people. It's all about the money, not saving lives.
• gut

  GoPens;1441701 wrote:Please tell me you aren't serious.

  Well, think about it...They're always experimenting on monkeys, and where did HIV originate from? hmmmm
• Trueblue23

  

  tk421;1441807 wrote:Maybe I'm too fucking cynical, but I don't see a cure becoming commonplace because the pharmaceutical companies make more money from monthly prescriptions than they would a cure, they have no interest in curing people. It's all about the money, not saving lives.

  This. You mean to tell me there is all of this insane technology in our world and they don't have a cure for HIV or cancer? I simply cannot believe that.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  ccrunner609;1441683 wrote:funny thing is......the cure for HIV was there all along. The government made the virus to kill of gays and drug users. Made the cure just in case it got out of hand and important people got it.

  
• Fly4Fun

  

  tk421;1441807 wrote:Maybe I'm too fucking cynical, but I don't see a cure becoming commonplace because the pharmaceutical companies make more money from monthly prescriptions than they would a cure, they have no interest in curing people. It's all about the money, not saving lives.

  Trueblue23;1441812 wrote:This. You mean to tell me there is all of this insane technology in our world and they don't have a cure for HIV or cancer? I simply cannot believe that.

  I'm pretty cynical, but I think this is a a tad over the top. I see you're not arguing that a cure won't be found, which makes sense. You would think eventually if it's feasible a cure for this situations will be found as there is constant on-going research into it. And no scientist would intentionally not find a cure, as the ones that do will receive awards and notoriety beyond a monetary "bribe" to not find it.
  
  But as far as it not being common place? I think that is partially up to the market and how expensive it is to "produce" the cure as well as balance all of the research and development budgets for drugs and procedures. I don't think anyone involved would just purposefully mark-up the price just so people can't have it and remain sick and thus need on-going treatment instead of a cure.
• gut

  Existing treatments and surgeries cost insurance companies into the tens and hundreds of thousands. There is clearly room for a happy medium that would be a win-win for insurance and pharma companies.
  
  If someone had a cure, besides the financial motive I think they'd be willing to go as far as risking their life to make it public. Could you be silenced or coerced? I imagine almost everyone has lost family or friends to cancer.
• Mohican00

  

  Fly4Fun;1441827 wrote:I don't think anyone involved would just purposefully mark-up the price just so people can't have it and remain sick and thus need on-going treatment instead of a cure.

  you've got a lot of faith in mankind left. Admirable
• gut

  Mohican00;1441842 wrote:you've got a lot of faith in mankind left. Admirable

  The flaw in your logic is that most cancer patients DON'T continue to receive ongoing treatment - they're dead. A cure for cancer is probably worth $1T. There is simply no rationalization that would convince me it is more profitable to withhold a cure. Even if it would somehow cannibalize other revenue streams for that pharma company, it would pale in comparison to providing a cure for 100% of the market vs. some lost revenue on maybe 10% of the market.
• Mohican00

  

  gut;1441893 wrote:The flaw in your logic is that most cancer patients DON'T continue to receive ongoing treatment - they're dead. A cure for cancer is probably worth $1T. There is simply no rationalization that would convince me it is more profitable to withhold a cure. Even if it would somehow cannibalize other revenue streams for that pharma company, it would pale in comparison to providing a cure for 100% of the market vs. some lost revenue on maybe 10% of the market.

  Oh, I agree with you on cancer. Honestly I've never closely known anyone who has had cancer (fortunately) but do they take a lot of pharmaceuticals? Or is their therapy mostly chemotherapy?
  
  People with AIDS, on the other hand, pop a shit ton of pills and are living much longer than they were 20-30 years ago. I hate to say it but it makes sense for pharmaceutical companies to not have AIDS abatement in their best interest.
• hasbeen

  

  Dismal side: if we have a cure for HIV and aids, how do we handle the over population?
• gut

  Mohican00;1441899 wrote: People with AIDS, on the other hand, pop a **** ton of pills and are living much longer than they were 20-30 years ago. I hate to say it but it makes sense for pharmaceutical companies to not have AIDS abatement in their best interest.

  Maybe. But like I said, nothing really prevents them from charging for 1 pill what they would get for 30 years of pills. And in fact the insurance companies would rather wipe it out and stop the spread. The pharma company could, theoretically, lose money in the long-run but they would only be concerned with the boatload of cash they could make in the next 3-5 years.
  
  With cancer you generally die or end-up in remission. But it comes back. Same basic logic.
  
  The sort of issues you raise come with less common diseases where there simply is no money in a cure (not enough to cover the R&D). That leaves it to mostly university research relying on grants and donations. But it's a very real impact, especially as margins get squeezed by socialized medicine.
• Heretic

  

  hasbeen;1441906 wrote:Dismal side: if we have a cure for HIV and aids, how do we handle the over population?

  As good as we currently are.
  
  Which means that this world needs a dose of Captain Trips. As long as I'm in the .01% that's immune...the Walkin' Dude needs disciples.
• friendfromlowry

  Mohican00;1441899 wrote:Oh, I agree with you on cancer. Honestly I've never closely known anyone who has had cancer (fortunately) but do they take a lot of pharmaceuticals? Or is their therapy mostly chemotherapy?.

  Depends on where the cancer is and patient's prognosis.
• dlazz

  ccrunner609;1441683 wrote:funny thing is......the cure for HIV was there all along. The government made the virus to kill of gays and drug users. Made the cure just in case it got out of hand and important people got it.

  
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Big medicine has got to be the most corrupt group in our country.