POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: John2038 on May 11, 2011, 03:05:16 pm
-
I found the Nelson article interesting and raising good questions.
In particular:
As an activist, there is something that I fear the most when it comes to HIV cure research. I fear that if we find one or a combination of approaches that may lead to a cure, access to this breakthrough will be limited if a pharmaceutical company owns the rights to the patent. We have seen how ineffective it has been for access when companies cannot let go of their profits to make ARVs available to all who need them around the world. Should the cure of AIDS belong to a pharmaceutical company or should governments get involved now so that we prevent greediness from blocking future access?
This is the elephant in the room in most meeting I have attended in the past few months. Only one company in the present has a commercial patent in this field: Sangamo Biosciences. They own the rights to the use of zinc finger nucleases to induce mutations on the CD4 CCR5 receptor that render them resistant to HIV infection. Discouraging pharmaceutical and biotech companies from owning rights of products that may lead to a cure maybe counterproductive to the development of these products. So, there lies another ethical dilemma.
Nothing new but i feel also this dilemna will have to be solved. But i'm afraid it won't and that as a consequence, million of people will stay behind if a cure is found.
About finding guinea pig, i'm not that sceptical.
http://www.thebody.com/content/art61881.html
-
If there is ever a "cure" whatever form it will be, will be introduced by a private company, even if much of the research leading up to it was funded by the government. The government usually does not produce drugs or other treatments. It provides money to researchers who then license their product to private firms to produce the end result. If there was not a profit motive behind it there would be no drugs. If drug companies didnt make a fortune off of HIV medications now there wouldnt be any medications to speak of. I would rather put my trust in a private company producing a cure with the hope of making a boat load of money, then I would on the government doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
I understand some people have had to wait to receive treatment because they cannot afford to buy the medications now. However, if there was no motivation to make the drugs in the first place no one would have access because there wouldnt be any medications to speak of.
-
Indeed. So why would pharma ever be looking for a cure is the next question then.
Old recurring question anyway i admit.
-
Indeed. So why would pharma ever be looking for a cure is the next question then.
Old recurring question anyway i admit.
i also really doubt a cure will ever come from the pharma. pharma is a business, and business means money. i can understand that, even if its not nice to hear.
if it comes, it will be from the academic field. but the lack of funding is slowing the pace i believe..
fatal clash between medicine and ... cash..
-
And newcomer with promising research are typically bought buy the big pharma, which are doing what they want with what they bought. At least there is the grand challenge to save us :)
-
"Should the cure of AIDS belong to a pharmaceutical company or should governments get involved now so that we prevent greediness from blocking future access?"
Isn't this kind of like a double-negative? Anytime the government gets involved in anything, it's usually screwed up. It is not lost on me the amount of money that is generated from HIV/AIDS. From the insurance programs/support services, pharma companies, a lot of folks have their hand in the pot. It's not all bad, per se, but there are vested reasons to keep things going just like they are for as long as possible.
For these reasons, I am fairly certain that the cure will come from the academic community to the chagrin of everyone else getting rich off of this bug.