Rod Daily tweets hes HIV Postitive

[TSLoverIB]

On another note, when HIV was first coming out, i remember, i was so young, people were so scared, not sure how it was transmitted, the effect, in school, it was all over the classes. I remember asking a doctor years later after they found out how it was transmitted, how it was spread, how they claim it came to be.
And i remember the doctor answering, i asked him after he spoke to our high school class, at that time it was speculated it was created in a lab.
I asked him, why someone would create something like this, i barley remember who he was, but his ANSWER:
He stated POPULATION CONTROL.

Which is FUCKING SAD if it is true.....

[bellamy]

On another note, when HIV was first coming out, i remember, i was so young, people were so scared, not sure how it was transmitted, the effect, in school, it was all over the classes. I remember asking a doctor years later after they found out how it was transmitted, how it was spread, how they claim it came to be.
And i remember the doctor answering, i asked him after he spoke to our high school class, at that time it was speculated it was created in a lab.
I asked him, why someone would create something like this, i barley remember who he was, but his ANSWER:
He stated POPULATION CONTROL.

Which is FUCKING SAD if it is true.....

ok lets all put on our tin foil hats and stock up on water and ammo for when "they" come for us

[serial138]

Well people could only hope, but logical thinking will result in realizing there is not money in "Cures" Only treatments.

If a drug company will make 7.1 billion a year in drug treatment sales, how much will cures bring if everyone is cured and no longer needs drugs, Sad..

Some believe that a cure already exists, maybe a cure will come to light.

Your economic theory there is not sound my friend. Sure, you can make 7 billion treating a cold now, or you could make 50 billion a year for a couple years with residuals of around 1 billion by curing it. Remember, new babies every day, they'll need the vaccine too. While you have the patent rights and are the only one to market you could clean up financially. You then funnel that 50 billion a year (for probably 2 or 3 years before everyone has it) into other investment vehicles, be they other pharma products or financial investments, and now you can make a far better return than a paltry 7 billion a year flat.

Remember, treatments are offered by multiple companies, so price elasticity is limited. If all you're doing is treating symptoms you can't charge more than the next guy doing the same thing. But if you're the only cure, you can charge a lot more.

[TSLoverIB]

Your economic theory there is not sound my friend. Sure, you can make 7 billion treating a cold now, or you could make 50 billion a year for a couple years with residuals of around 1 billion by curing it. Remember, new babies every day, they'll need the vaccine too. While you have the patent rights and are the only one to market you could clean up financially. You then funnel that 50 billion a year (for probably 2 or 3 years before everyone has it) into other investment vehicles, be they other pharma products or financial investments, and now you can make a far better return than a paltry 7 billion a year flat.

Remember, treatments are offered by multiple companies, so price elasticity is limited. If all you're doing is treating symptoms you can't charge more than the next guy doing the same thing. But if you're the only cure, you can charge a lot more.

Your argument is valid but economically speaking even your reasoning is faulty. If one company can bring in profits for treatments at 7 billion a year in drug treatments. A cure, vaccine would bring in a one time cost. Say currently a HPV vaccine in place of HIV is $2000 one time insurance cost. Yet one company can charge to TREAT one patient $2500 a month in medicine. This would be a cost lowered in years of course since patients in the 80s and 90;s were paying much more. Some patients have been on treatment with AZT, the cocktails, etc etc, for FIFTEEN YEARS. Lets say one patient, $2500 or More in Past Years Per Month X 180 Months = $450,000 PER patient. With your argument, you believe a company would charge someone half a million for a cure? Even if someone gets recently infected, and current medicine costs the same. Sorry, NOT HAPPENING, Sounds like treatment is the sick way to go in a business standpoint. Lets take a private company a one time grant cost of 20 Billion to the first company to find a cure for cancer, HIV. Yet cancer brings in 1 billion a YEAR in treatments. Why has no private company found one? because its to hard to find? Because not enough people have died yet?

Intelligent individuals know exactly why....

[serial138]

I should have known better than to argue with a conspiracy theorist.

You forget that treatment only affects those who have the disease, while a preventive measure such as a vaccine can be administered to the entire world population. The CDC says that there are currently 35 million people living with HIV around the world. World population is 7 billion. Which target market would you prefer to have a product aimed at, 35million, or 7 billion?

But lets say that between now and 15 years from now the number of HIV cases triples to 105 million. That's unlikely to happen but just for shits and grins lets go ahead and make that assumption. And we'll also assume everyone pays $30,000 a year for treatment, going off your $2500 a month number. Not figuring inflation, price erosion, or any of a host of other variables in, you get about $47.3 trillion for treatment if that 105 million cases was treated the whole 15 years. Now lets say 3 billion of the world's 7 billion people get a one time treatment for $30,000. That comes out to $90 trillion. Which one would appeal more to the greedy corporations you think?

In addition, you've noted that one patient paying $2500 a month for 15 years is $450,000. You also mentioned that the price is declining, so that $2500 can be expected to decline further, eroding your $450,000 to even less than that. That is not a good investment. Companies want to keep margins up, not see their goods become commodities. And especially in Pharmaceutical companies, generics manufacturers are ready to eat those margins up as soon as the patent expires, so you need to get your money in before it does.

If you do any basic time value of money computation you can determine that any investment returning only 3% (basically just a tiny amount more than inflation) over that same period would yield $567,000. You're going to tell me the greedy company is going to settle for $450,000 (or less because of price erosion) instead of getting $567,000? What about investing it and getting a 5% return, and yielding $676,000 over that 15 year period? Any company would be happy to be able to get their investment out of treating HIV and reinvest in bigger returns.

What was that about intelligent individuals now? For someone who has Gordon Gecko in his avatar, you are extremely naïve about finance and economics.

[bluesoul]

The standard for "Civilians" is once every ninety days. Which gives plenty of time to infect multiple partners and their partners to infect people without anyone knowing whats happened. So What do you think, Should Tommy test more frequently? Thats for Tommy to decide.

i don't get what you're saying. i was saying "if tommy doesn't have sex" then you said the standard is to test every 90 days. so if tommy comes within 0 sexual contact or blood transmission he is to test every 90 days?

my point was that if tommy is having less frequent intercourse (than sex workers/porn performers) he need not test as frequently- but if he's having more sexual contact than (then mentioned people) then he is to test more.

let's take a different analogy. if someone rides to motorcycle everyday then they should wear a helmet everyday. if you don't ride a motorcycle at all, do you require a helmet?

[Tyler___Durden]

The standard for "Civilians" is once every ninety days. Which gives plenty of time to infect multiple partners and their partners to infect people without anyone knowing whats happened.

Really?
No chance.
Looking at everyone who doesn't get paid to have sex,
the vast majority of the sexually active population with multiple partners, never get tested, ever.
I was at my National Health Service GUM clinic today, and by mistake
I was given a few minutes with a doctor, rather than just the nurse for
conducting my tests. After confirming all the details held on 'puter still applied,
I asked the doc about the breakdown of people attending their GUM/GUM's across the UK.
She said that a third attend because of symptoms.
Of the two thirds that attend with no symptoms, there is a lot of illogical thought processes. Such as people who have started a sexual relationship with a new partner, wishing to get tested to confirm all is well. As opposed to getting tested before getting sexual with the new partner.
Porn performers are almost unheard of because they mostly go for tests at private clinics.
There are some Escorts.
Swingers/people with multiple sexual partners are in the minority. The true figure for this group may well be higher because people don't always tell the truth.
Looking at the many hundreds of clients I've had,
I am certain that the vast majority have NEVER had an STI test.
Of the few that have, the testing is at best sporadic or a one-off.
An Escort or a Porn performer who tests regularly and always practices safer-sex, is a far safer shag than a random pick up in a club or bar.

[TSLoverIB]

let's take a different analogy. if someone rides a motorcycle everyday then they should wear a helmet everyday. if you don't ride a motorcycle at all, do you require a helmet?

Good Point, I am not a sex worker so i can not advice a good testing regimen.

[VictoriaVeil]

@Tyler Yes Really. The US Fed Government allows actually will pay for testing every three months. Thats what I was referring too when I said thats the standard. I believe everyone should get tested, its responsible, and AS I just mentioned, people can do it for free - every three months.

Now whether people do or not is an entirely different scenario. That relates to personal choices and in my mind irresponsible ones; which actually leads to spreading all STD's.

@bluesoul: Say tommy got tested two weeks after he had sex and was negative for STD's. He goes six months between encounters. Because it was less frequent is he still not potentially dangerous to his second partner? Of course he is, It generally takes more than 14 days for HIV to show up in a test. THats why I am advocating that people take advantage of whats available to get tested.

As for the analogy, I don't really follow. It seems that it would correspond better to wearing a condom every time a person has sex, not whether some should get tested regularly. #IMO

[Tyler___Durden]

Ah ok but immaterial.
I'm in the UK where testing is free, even if you go get tested 4 times a day!!!
The point is that people (civilians) generally don't bother getting tested at all.
That's why I assume they all have AIDS and I act accordingly.

And seat belts don't work either, if people don't wear them.