AIDS Expert has theory on vaccine's delay (from CNN)

[thanos]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/condi....ap/index.html


AIDS expert has theory on vaccine's delay

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."

[AllanahStarrNYC]

As I have said all in long- pharmaceutical companies are in business to keep you on drugs. Do you know how much money would be lost if there were no more HIV infections?

[Felicia Katt]

Just one company was making 250 million on just one of many anti-aids medications. They tried to raise the price on their drug by 500 per cent when it wasn't used as part of a 12 pill per day program, but instead as only 2-3 pills per day to boost other drugs.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...ctors_boycott/

the drug companies are only interested in profits and theirs are the highest of any companies out there. The nine largest pharma giants raked in $30.6 billion in 2001 profits. During the past decade, drug firms’ profits represented an 18.5 percent return on revenue or 5.6 times the median return (3.3 percent) of Fortune 500 companies.

30.6 billion but they can't afford 100 million to develop a vaccine that will save millions of lives?

BS

FK

[Trogdor]

simple, the drug companies are publicaly traded companies, who's goal is to MAKE MONEY. There are cures out there ,but if they were made public, the drug companies are outta business.

And because that cheap, natural cures are out there, the FDA passed a law saying "Only a drug can treat and/or cure diease"

There is a fruit out there that can control many illnesses, such as diabeties and other nasty ones, Mangosteen fruit.

BUT if you or me went on TV or the newspaper and said "This fruit will cure or improve you're illness" the FDA and FTC would send out federal agents, with guns drawn to where we live, slap us in cuffs ,destroy our information on it and proscute us to the extent of the law cause we are practising medicine without a lisence.....because the aforementioned law, the fruit is now a drug, and only liscened medical people can prescribe it and the medical feild is FORBIDDEN to use natural cures. Cause you can not patent natural remedies. Plus the drugs make you sick and sicker. I never take chemical medicines and I rarely get sick, I caught aflu a few months ago, I was over it in 3 days. People are getting sicker and sicker every year. And when I was a kid in the 80's, I was wondering to myself, "Hey, these guys are making so much money, to find a cure for this cancer thing I hear about and about AIDS I hear about, yet they still can't find a cure?" and this was when I was a 6 year old. Look at animals.....they dont get heart attacks or cancer.

Read the book Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About, the hair on the back of your neck will stand up when you read this, and you'll get even more disgusted with the way our government looks out for the big corporations.

And don't get me started on the food industry...............




Just show that money is the root of all evil........and the worst invention that our silly race of self destructive monkies ever made.

[Iluminati]

I think the government is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. It is true that, yes, there is little profit motive in making an AIDS vaccine. The problem is that government is the main *reason* for there not being a profit motive. Governments tend to purchase the lion's share of vaccines and therefore pretty much have the power to shape the market price...no matter how much it actually cost the government to do it. Meanwhile, with AIDS drugs, since it's mostly individuals purchasing the drugs, the drug companies aren't subject to price-by-fiat from the government.

Now, to be fair, there are a number of schemes floating around Congress by both Republicans and Democrats to solve the problem. The Republicans want to give companies an up-front subsidy, while the Democrats want to cover losses from vaccine development if there is a difference between cost of development and the sale price. It's up to you which one you prefer, but get at your congressmen/women and senators if you want an answer.

[shemalejunky]

But then again, why sink billions of dollars into research and development and then have no hope of getting your money back? This is what the drug companies profits represent....the return of the money they invested in the first place. If they didn't do the R&D there would be no hope of drugs. Dream on people.

[BlackAdder]

As I have said all in long- pharmaceutical companies are in business to keep you on drugs. Do you know how much money would be lost if there were no more HIV infections?

About just as much money as they would lose if an actual cure for cancer or diabetes was put out there.

Ive read that book, and its links the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies. In short, there out to keep the general populace unhealthy so the companies within those industries can keep making incredible profits.

Barring foreign pharmacies from sending you medications at a reasonable cost is only the tip of the ice berg in there quest to screw you over.