• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

HIV "cure" could make UK first to be rid of virus

Infinite Chaos

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
23,928
Reaction score
16,475
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A 44-year-old British man may have become the first person in the world to be cured of HIV.Tests showed the virus had become undetectable in the blood of the previously HIV-positive man, after he was treated with a pioneering new therapy designed to eradicate the virus ~ Link.
Click to expand...

Still only research tests and the tests on the patient will continue but this looks very positive for all sufferers around the world. (Not to mention profits for sales in treatment)

Great news - now, should the drug be free or sold for profit? (Being from a country with Universal Healthcare I am very pro-free access to critical life saving treatments)
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Still only research tests and the tests on the patient will continue but this looks very positive for all sufferers around the world. (Not to mention profits for sales in treatment)

Great news - now, should the drug be free or sold for profit? (Being from a country with Universal Healthcare I am very pro-free access to critical life saving treatments)
Click to expand...

Of course it should be sold at a profit, if you want money to be invested in medical research in future.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Still only research tests and the tests on the patient will continue but this looks very positive for all sufferers around the world. (Not to mention profits for sales in treatment)

Great news - now, should the drug be free or sold for profit? (Being from a country with Universal Healthcare I am very pro-free access to critical life saving treatments)
Click to expand...

Heard it before.. dont believe it. There would for one, be no profit in a cure. HIV/AIDS is a billion dollar business, so no incentive to cure it. Same with cancer.
 
PeteEU said:
Heard it before.. dont believe it. There would for one, be no profit in a cure. HIV/AIDS is a billion dollar business, so no incentive to cure it. Same with cancer.
Click to expand...

Not everywhere operates like the US where big pharma buys off the politicians

And even in the US, once cures are found elsewhere there is no going back
 
chromium said:
Not everywhere operates like the US where big pharma buys off the politicians

And even in the US, once cures are found elsewhere there is no going back
Click to expand...

Not talking about the US...... European big pharma are not exactly angels either.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Still only research tests and the tests on the patient will continue but this looks very positive for all sufferers around the world. (Not to mention profits for sales in treatment)

Great news - now, should the drug be free or sold for profit? (Being from a country with Universal Healthcare I am very pro-free access to critical life saving treatments)
Click to expand...

The research and treatment was developed via government funds per the NHS; I don't see where gouging people for profit per EpiPens, Daraprim and the like would come into play in this case.

To directly answer your question though, assuming it truly works, the drug should obviously be provided free to those who need it at the first opportunity (resulting in massive cost savings for governments with UHC/singlepayer).
 
PeteEU said:
Heard it before.. dont believe it. There would for one, be no profit in a cure. HIV/AIDS is a billion dollar business, so no incentive to cure it. Same with cancer.
Click to expand...

Other than being the most famous person in the world?
 
Crovax said:
Other than being the most famous person in the world?
Click to expand...

More money in a constant expensive treatment, than in an actual cure. Just a fact. I bet there are a lot of cures that are being kept behind closed doors because of this. Yes we live in such a cynical world, a world where companies refuse to allow generic production in the 3rd world to prevent/help with basic illness. A world where, companies jack up prices for medicine that is needed to live... so keeping cures behind closed doors aint that big a stretch.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Still only research tests and the tests on the patient will continue but this looks very positive for all sufferers around the world. (Not to mention profits for sales in treatment)

Great news - now, should the drug be free or sold for profit? (Being from a country with Universal Healthcare I am very pro-free access to critical life saving treatments)
Click to expand...

If that research was completely paid for with tax dollars then sure it should not be sold for profit to the British citizens and then made public domain so companies in other countries can make it.
 
Crovax said:
Other than being the most famous person in the world?
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Pete on this. Being famous doesn't matter to many people and the nature of companies is to make as much profit as they can. Sure profit is an incentive for product development and advancement. But I doubt companies would intentionally come out with a product that will lower profits. Which is why medical research is one of the few areas of private business I support tax dollars paying for.
 
jamesrage said:
I have to agree with Pete on this. Being famous doesn't matter to many people and the nature of companies is to make as much profit as they can. Sure profit is an incentive for product development and advancement. But I doubt companies would intentionally come out with a product that will lower profits. Which is why medical research is one of the few areas of private business I support tax dollars paying for.
Click to expand...

The valuation of a company would quadruple overnight if they cad a cure for something major that would be worth a lot for than profits for the stockholders. The more money in treatment as far as an individual company is just silliness bordering on conspiracy
 
Crovax said:
The valuation of a company would quadruple overnight if they cad a cure for something major that would be worth a lot for than profits for the stockholders.
Click to expand...

And once most of the aids and HIV patients ran out their stock would plummet.


The more money in treatment as far as an individual company is just silliness bordering on conspiracy
Click to expand...

You are expecting people to believe that a company would throw away billions or even trillions of dollars of steady long term profit?
 
PeteEU said:
Heard it before.. dont believe it. There would for one, be no profit in a cure. HIV/AIDS is a billion dollar business, so no incentive to cure it. Same with cancer.
Click to expand...
Unless the current drugs are sold by your competitors while yours are no longer protected by patents, and low-cost Indian manufacturers are taking over your business.

Besides there are hundreds of thousands of public researchers around the world. They would earn money for finding such a cure, fame and respect in their field and the public, and the feeling of having accomplished something great in their lives.
 
jamesrage said:
And once most of the aids and HIV patients ran out their stock would plummet.
Click to expand...
So what? Even for a regular disease it would take decades and a global effort to eradicate the disease from the surface of the Earth. And in the case of AIDS I bet that most of carriers do not even know they are contaminated.

The seller would have earned tens of billions of dollars before the disease vanishes.
 
jamesrage said:
And once most of the aids and HIV patients ran out their stock would plummet.
Click to expand...

Because stock can never be sold?

You are expecting people to believe that a company would throw away billions or even trillions of dollars of steady long term profit?
Click to expand...

Pfizer made 7 billion in profit last year and is worth about 70 billion, so a cure would could be worth nearly 40 years of profits nearly overnight to the stockholders.
 
I love a good big pharma conspiracy. For one, the article says the virus is "undetectable." This does not mean "cured." Our current medications can treat and cause undetectable viral loads to be seen on tests. This does not mean the person no longer has HIV. In the world of curing a condition though companies strive for this. Look at Sovaldi and Harvoni. These are new treatments that cure HCV. If a company makes a cure they get market monopoly until their parent expires. There is a lot of money to be made with that.

I'd love to see where the article cites the clinical trial showing the benefit... or even if they would just name the compound in question
 
joG said:
Of course it should be sold at a profit, if you want money to be invested in medical research in future.
Click to expand...

PeteEU said:
Heard it before.. dont believe it. There would for one, be no profit in a cure. HIV/AIDS is a billion dollar business, so no incentive to cure it. Same with cancer.
Click to expand...

Two opposing sides of the same coin. If there's profit in a cure then why delay it and if there's no profit or incentive in a cure why has cancer survivability improved so much? Why are people still searching for sures?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Two opposing sides of the same coin. If there's profit in a cure then why delay it and if there's no profit or incentive in a cure why has cancer survivability improved so much? Why are people still searching for sures?
Click to expand...

The point is, there is no profit in a cure. Once cured the money stops coming in right? Hence there is no incentive to find a cure.

As for cancer survivability .. funny thing. Before people died, so did the revenue stream. Keeping them alive at what ever cost, means more money! But actually curing people... not really. You are in remission, not cured. Remission means more tests, more doctor visits, more costs...
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Two opposing sides of the same coin. If there's profit in a cure then why delay it and if there's no profit or incentive in a cure why has cancer survivability improved so much? Why are people still searching for sures?
Click to expand...

We have developed many medications to wipe out illness or reduce its incidence below a perceptible threshold. But one must allow the gross sounding profites attached to a successful medicine among the many flops, if we want the research to keep up. It is the reason that medical advance has usually been faster in the US in the last decades, where the jackpot was larger.
 
PeteEU said:
The point is, there is no profit in a cure. Once cured the money stops coming in right? Hence there is no incentive to find a cure.

As for cancer survivability .. funny thing. Before people died, so did the revenue stream. Keeping them alive at what ever cost, means more money! But actually curing people... not really. You are in remission, not cured. Remission means more tests, more doctor visits, more costs...
Click to expand...

You are right. Let the cancer patients die. Alternatively let pharmaceutical companies research medicines and doctors look for cures. The number of cancer patients that survive treatment to no longer need any has increased significantly. A large number of illnesses were eliminated from daily view and urgency by developments in pharmaceuticals. That this blissful state might be running out and new killer bugs are attacking is disturbing. That people would propose removing the element that seems to have helped develop drugs continuously for decades seems weird. What exactly would you want to do to improve innovation in that research chain?
 
PeteEU said:
The point is, there is no profit in a cure. Once cured the money stops coming in right? Hence there is no incentive to find a cure.
Click to expand...
Exactly: what is the point of earning tens of billions of dollars if does not last forever? This is why no one digs oil: the source would exhaust after a few years. And why silicon companies refused to invest in smaller transistors: what's the point if another technology comes up ten years later? Nope, no incentive.

PeteEU, your economic insight is only rivaled by your political insight. You truthfully embodies the European Union.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Still only research tests and the tests on the patient will continue but this looks very positive for all sufferers around the world. (Not to mention profits for sales in treatment)

Great news - now, should the drug be free or sold for profit? (Being from a country with Universal Healthcare I am very pro-free access to critical life saving treatments)
Click to expand...

Profit of course, otherwise, why would anyone produce it? Which is not to say that the person receiving treatment will pay for it. Rather, someone who doesnt have HIV will pay higher taxes or medical costs for routine stuff in order to cover free treatment for those with HIV (who mostly got it through risky behavior).
 
Surrealistik said:
The research and treatment was developed via government funds per the NHS; I don't see where gouging people for profit per EpiPens, Daraprim and the like would come into play in this case.

To directly answer your question though, assuming it truly works, the drug should obviously be provided free to those who need it at the first opportunity (resulting in massive cost savings for governments with UHC/singlepayer).
Click to expand...

Free to them, but not to the rest of us. Someone has to produce the medication and pay the doctors and facilities.
 
Auvergnat said:
So what? Even for a regular disease it would take decades and a global effort to eradicate the disease from the surface of the Earth. And in the case of AIDS I bet that most of carriers do not even know they are contaminated.
Click to expand...
Then those people wouldn't be buying the drugs to treat their disease.
The seller would have earned tens of billions of dollars before the disease vanishes
Click to expand...

In a short time sure a company could earn billions of dollars before a disease vanishes. But companies also think long term.
 
Crovax said:
Because stock can never be sold?



Pfizer made 7 billion in profit last year and is worth about 70 billion, so a cure would could be worth nearly 40 years of profits nearly overnight to the stockholders.
Click to expand...
SO people who can bare even afford the HIV/AIDs treatments will somehow be able to afford that much of a increase for the cure?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom