POZ Community Forums
Meds, Mind, Body & Benefits => Research News & Studies => Topic started by: veritas on April 16, 2009, 10:41:13 am
-
Look at the pipeline -----
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GlaxoSmithKline-and-Pfizer-prnews-14942507.html
What will happen to Gilead?
Will this mega joint venture squelch innovation?
What does this mean for POZ people?
Questions to think about.
v
-
This seems a well-spun arrangement to look "buzzy" and "researchy" in a prominent area, but keeps HIV out their core businesses. HIV is not their core businesses. To be honest, GSK and Pfizer have been pretty poor scorers in HIV. GSK's (old, old) drugs get increasingly tarnished repuations as time goes by. Gilead, BMS and some of the other smaller cos are making the running. - matt
edited for spelling
-
Clearly, the merged company will be a financial powerhouse in the HIV field with potential access to emerging therapies:
"The clear focus of the new business will be to invest in research and development of innovative HIV treatments and formulations that improve adherence and overcome resistance to the virus."
The new company will be an entity in and of itself backed by the GSK and Pfizer umbrellas. It will be interesting to watch its' development.
v
-
As others have mentioned, both companies haven't very significantly contribute to the fight against HIV.
The good news is that, if it were the case, we could have find doubtfull the creation of this 3rd company (as it can appears as a fuse).
But it is not the case.
As they want to create an innovative company, I guess both of these companies have come to realize that we are getting closer and closer to a functional cure, and that many innovative research with good and sometime promising results have been obtained with others route than just the drug route.
In more, the drug route become more and more difficult.
Firstly because there are already quiet a lot of drugs (but never enough), and secondly because developing a new drug become more and more challenging.
Personally, I have always believe that federating the HIV research would be a good things.
Unfortunately, creating a new company doesn't take this direction. It's just a new company, despite solid finances and probably talented searchers.
Now I do not understand the reason to create this new company.
Indeed, the HIV research is useful for others diseases as well.
Maybe the reasons are more legal and organisational, in more than avoiding the spy of technologies.
It might also help to reduce the costs, and such company might still enter in the stock market, and it's results not affect the 2 owners, if nothing is discovered (as they it is the case till now for those 2 companies).
Finally, IMHO, this news IS a great news. Because additional efforts are made and because the oreintations will be probably different than those taken by the HIV drugs market leaders.
-
http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/hiv_glaxo_pfizer_2042_16469.shtml (http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/hiv_glaxo_pfizer_2042_16469.shtml)
Unfortunately, I don't think any of this answers the big questions -- but I do think Jeff Berry's quote at the end is somewhat telling.
This was big news in the pink pages, to be sure. But I think it's can to take some time to figure out if this GSK-Pfizer spinoff really will improve -- as oppossed to set back -- innovation for people living with HIV.
Tim Horn
-
I think the merger is smilply because they are afraid as many are in the Medical Indrustry and related fields for Universial Healthcare is on the table and both these group are collecting their Armies of lobbist and battle plan to make sure that they keep their government checks coming into their pockets from Medicare, Medicaid and VA foumularies for it is biggier than AIDS, without and negioation clause on RX drugs mandated by the Fed or the American People, for that could put a dent in their bottom line.
And it makes since to merge for Global position in distrubution and research, but the first one is they are afraid like many and want to combine their armies and connects or people on the Hill (Washington D.C) that own them many favors and sold out to them years ago, for a boat, new house or off shore bank account.
It is all good, just good old fashion free enterprise nothing new and ithe truth of our world, like it or not, some are on the bottom and some are on the top. And not to many people left that will speak the truth to power.
Going by the swiming pool and have a cocktail and celbrate life.. Have a great weekend Poz.com and AIDMEDS.com, be well and will chat later, Tim-bo lets get together soon. :-*
Frederick Wright
GNP+USA
Frederickgnp@aol.com
-
What is concerning me much is the fact that making such a merge is an evident sign that there is reason for profit in the coming years from new drugs not designed for curing the infection but for keeping it a chronic disease. If both companies are spending time and money for this merge they don't expect to see a functional cure or vaccine for many years. I hope to be wrong.
-
We already have a functional cure: HAART.
-
We already have a functional cure: HAART.
HAART is not a functional cure but a treatment to control the infection. You need to take the meds for your entire life. A functional cure means an injection or a medicine which you take once a year or maybe only one time and never again. Something that teaches your immune system to battle the virus on its own.
-
HAART is like insulin for diabetic people, although much more expensive.
Insulin is not a cure, it has to be taken at the right time, and if a person skips a dose,
s/he can get into a coma or a die in another way...Also, even with insulin, diabetic people have more chances to get another chronic disease (cardiovascular, ophtalmical, neurological) or an infectious disease (due to diabetic-related immunodef.). A functional cure for diabetes could be achived by using a genetic approach (gene therapy)...