AIDS Vaccine Being Delayed; Private Companies Not Interested

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2005-12-26 02:54pm

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.

Fucking disgraceful! Waiting for the government to shoulder the burden of developing the vaccine so you opportunistic fucktards'll swoop in and rake in pure profit? I'll bet you'll jack its price up even higher after you've been allowed to produce it by the government too, assholes!

I don't mind capitalism or the right to make a profit, but it does not come before alleviating suffering, rendering aid, and helping people.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-12-26 03:02pm

This is fucking disgraceful, well you useless money grubbing companies, DONATE THE FUCKING MONEY YOU EARN SO THERE MIGHT BE A CHANCE TO STOP THIS.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-12-26 03:12pm

Fucking disgraceful! Waiting for the government to shoulder the burden of developing the vaccine so you opportunistic fucktards'll swoop in and rake in pure profit?

Not exactly. In the event where the government developed an AIDS vaccine, companies could undoubtedly make money off of manufacturing and selling the vaccine, but unless a single company was granted a patent on the drug they would be unable to reap the same benefits they would from a patented drug developed in-house. Certainly the government would not spend billions developing a drug only to hand it over to a single company to sell at an inflated price; it would be politically impossible.

This is fucking disgraceful, well you useless money grubbing companies, DONATE THE FUCKING MONEY YOU EARN SO THERE MIGHT BE A CHANCE TO STOP THIS.

Who will invest in said money grubbing companies if it becomes known that they are donating all of the profits to AIDS research?

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-12-26 03:17pm

Joe wrote:
This is fucking disgraceful, well you useless money grubbing companies, DONATE THE FUCKING MONEY YOU EARN SO THERE MIGHT BE A CHANCE TO STOP THIS.
Who will invest in said money grubbing companies if it becomes known that they are donating all of the profits to AIDS research?

I understand that yet I don't see why they can't help(with their massive resources) the goverment to develop this, a small 1% or something of their R&D budget. I know what I'm asking goes against buisness sense but I feel these large companies have the ability to help.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2005-12-26 03:52pm

When you think about it, drug companies really don't have any motivation for developing an AIDS vaccine. Think about it.

Under WTO agreements, countries would normally have to negotiate with and pay them "adequate compensation" patent-holders in order to legally import generic versions of drugs still under patent. However, if they declare a public health emergency, then they don't have to negotiate adequate compensation with the patent-holders at all.

Now, consider the fact that a lot of the countries hit the hardest by AIDS are under a state of public health emergency. If a company develops a vaccine, they have to recoup the costs of R&D somehow, most likely in the form of higher costs. However, generic drug companies will be able to sell the same product at a lower cost (because they don't need a higher revenue to break even) in those countries regardless of patent status. That isn't just a lack of incentives, that's an outright deterrent for any company who's got shareholders and a board of trustees to answer to.

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 04:06pm

I doubt there is a large enough market(that can afford the cost) for an AIDs vaccine. This isn't the type of Vaccine that everyone is going to go out and get. 90% of people in first world countries are going to say "I don't do drugs, I don't have unprotected sex with random people why the hell do I need this vaccine?"

The market that exists can't afford the vaccine so a company that went out of its way to produce one would devote millions of dollars to hopefully break even if they can manage to do that.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-12-26 04:11pm

Joe wrote:Who will invest in said money grubbing companies if it becomes known that they are donating all of the profits to AIDS research?

This is one of the most dangerous viruses known to man, whose infection was a veritable death sentence until recently. These people are the ones with the resources and manpower to put a stop to it. I'm sorry, but this is one of those cases where I'd safely say, "Fuck good business."

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 04:15pm

Durandal wrote:
Joe wrote:Who will invest in said money grubbing companies if it becomes known that they are donating all of the profits to AIDS research?
This is one of the most dangerous viruses known to man, whose infection was a veritable death sentence until recently. These people are the ones with the resources and manpower to put a stop to it. I'm sorry, but this is one of those cases where I'd safely say, "Fuck good business."

Its not the most dangerous virus known to man. The chances of most people getting effected is slim to nill. It is not like the plague or smallpox which is carried through the air.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2005-12-26 04:19pm

It's still a death sentence for anyone who isn't in the top 5% of incomes anyway, so it's effectively still a death sentence.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-12-26 04:20pm

LongVin wrote:I doubt there is a large enough market(that can afford the cost) for an AIDs vaccine. This isn't the type of Vaccine that everyone is going to go out and get. 90% of people in first world countries are going to say "I don't do drugs, I don't have unprotected sex with random people why the hell do I need this vaccine?"

The market that exists can't afford the vaccine so a company that went out of its way to produce one would devote millions of dollars to hopefully break even if they can manage to do that.

If this were true, there would be zero market for AIDS therapy.. Yet these are pursued and sold regularly.

The problem is it's more profitable to research, develop, and sell those therapies. It's better than drugs; you can't quit or you die. A vaccine is used once.

The market exists. It's just another case of the 'Free Market' screwing over the many for the few.

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 04:43pm

SirNitram wrote:
LongVin wrote:I doubt there is a large enough market(that can afford the cost) for an AIDs vaccine. This isn't the type of Vaccine that everyone is going to go out and get. 90% of people in first world countries are going to say "I don't do drugs, I don't have unprotected sex with random people why the hell do I need this vaccine?"

The market that exists can't afford the vaccine so a company that went out of its way to produce one would devote millions of dollars to hopefully break even if they can manage to do that.
If this were true, there would be zero market for AIDS therapy.. Yet these are pursued and sold regularly.

The problem is it's more profitable to research, develop, and sell those therapies. It's better than drugs; you can't quit or you die. A vaccine is used once.

The market exists. It's just another case of the 'Free Market' screwing over the many for the few.

There is a difference between the vaccine market and the therapy market. The therapy market targets the small percentage of people who already have AIDs and they require specialized drugs and other things to just survive. Which in most industralized countris is ussually less then a percent of the population or just around 1%. You can still make a profit if 50-100 thousand people are constantly buying your drugs.

The Vaccine market however would target people who do not have HIV or AIDs. Most people would not be willing to go get this vaccine feeling they would do not need it(which they probably don't.)

The only people who are most likely to get this vaccine would be health care workers, police, fire and EMTs. Anyone who has to deal with sick or injured people.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-12-26 04:48pm

LongVin wrote:There is a difference between the vaccine market and the therapy market. The therapy market targets the small percentage of people who already have AIDs and they require specialized drugs and other things to just survive. Which in most industralized countris is ussually less then a percent of the population or just around 1%. You can still make a profit if 50-100 thousand people are constantly buying your drugs.

Congratulations, dickwad. You managed to repeat what I said: The market exists, and is continuous.

The Vaccine market however would target people who do not have HIV or AIDs. Most people would not be willing to go get this vaccine feeling they would do not need it(which they probably don't.)

Uh-huh. Just like how no one gets any vaccines for anything but the flu? You live in la-la land.

The only people who are most likely to get this vaccine would be health care workers, police, fire and EMTs. Anyone who has to deal with sick or injured people.

Which is why no one gets Hep shots!

Wait, they do! You're an idiot.

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 04:56pm

I didn't say the market doesn't exist for treating the virus. I was stating the difference between the market for a therapy drug and the market for a vaccine. The therapy market will have a constant income and a core group of people who have to take it. Whereas the vaccine will not have the same required market.

Most vaccines people get are required by law that they receive them. i.e. Hep shots. If you want to go to school or get certain jobs you need to bring them proof you have been immunized to those diseases.

As for the flu its apples and oranges. You have a reasonable chance to get the flu during the year simply because its easily spread through coughing and other day to day contact with other people. Even with the flu being so easilly spread theres still plenty of people every year who go "I can get by without a flu shot." How many people do you think would voluntarily get an HIV shot when the chance of them getting the disease is nearly non existant?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-12-26 05:03pm

LongVin wrote:I didn't say the market doesn't exist for treating the virus. I was stating the difference between the market for a therapy drug and the market for a vaccine. The therapy market will have a constant income and a core group of people who have to take it. Whereas the vaccine will not have the same required market.

That is exactly what I said: The vaccine will sell, but you only get one sale per customer. Whereas a therapy is something you sell for constant profit. Are you done trying to make yourself seem clever by regurgitating my words yet?

Most vaccines people get are required by law that they receive them. i.e. Hep shots. If you want to go to school or get certain jobs you need to bring them proof you have been immunized to those diseases.

And remarkably, this includes sexually-transmitted diseases at times. Why would HIV, a deadly virus which has caught millions in it's grasp, be different? Because you're an arrogant, ignorant retard?

As for the flu its apples and oranges. You have a reasonable chance to get the flu during the year simply because its easily spread through coughing and other day to day contact with other people. Even with the flu being so easilly spread theres still plenty of people every year who go "I can get by without a flu shot." How many people do you think would voluntarily get an HIV shot when the chance of them getting the disease is nearly non existant?

Arrogance and ignorance. How efficient of you.

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 05:06pm

Because HIV isn't widespread. The insurance companies are not going to want to pay for something that less then 1% of the population has and that so few people get.

I also can gurantee there are alot of people out there who won't want to have dead HIV virus being injected into their bloodstream. Look at the Chicken Pox Vaccine, there are plenty of parents out there who want their kids to get Chicken Pox just so they can avoid getting the Vaccine.

Post by **Edi** » 2005-12-26 05:07pm

LongVin wrote:I didn't say the market doesn't exist for treating the virus. I was stating the difference between the market for a therapy drug and the market for a vaccine. The therapy market will have a constant income and a core group of people who have to take it. Whereas the vaccine will not have the same required market.

Most vaccines people get are required by law that they receive them. i.e. Hep shots. If you want to go to school or get certain jobs you need to bring them proof you have been immunized to those diseases.

As for the flu its apples and oranges. You have a reasonable chance to get the flu during the year simply because its easily spread through coughing and other day to day contact with other people. Even with the flu being so easilly spread theres still plenty of people every year who go "I can get by without a flu shot." How many people do you think would voluntarily get an HIV shot when the chance of them getting the disease is nearly non existant?

You really are one dumb fuck. The reason a lot of people don't take flu shots is that there are several dhundred different strains of flu and it mutates constantly. So getting a flu shot that was based off of a particular strain is no guarantee that you won't get infected with another strain. Furthermore, most flu strains don't cause a lot of problems unless you are old, very young or in poor health to begin with.

AIDS, on the other hand, is something that WILL kill you eventually (or the other diseases that can get in after AIDS has fiucked up your immune system will if you wantto get technincal, but AIDS is still the underlying cause). Treating even a small population of AIDS victims with therapy is fucking expensive, and in places where there is actual universal healthcare, it's the state that ends up paying a shitload of that money. If everyone is immunized (which doesn't cost a lot after the vaccine production has been ramped up), you don't need to deal with the therapy costs of any new patients. There won't be as many people out of the workforce due to AIDS, and the healthcare resources used for AIDS therapy can be used someplace else where they are needed. Never mind that a lot of people would get the vaccine just to be safe, to be free from worry.

Most vaccines that are required by law are to prevent infectious diseases from spreading and to reduce public health care costs. So you have no fucking argument on any avenue other than corporate greed.

Edi

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-12-26 05:07pm

LongVin wrote:Because HIV isn't widespread. The insurance companies are not going to want to pay for something that less then 1% of the population has and that so few people get.

I also can gurantee there are alot of people out there who won't want to have dead HIV virus being injected into their bloodstream. Look at the Chicken Pox Vaccine, there are plenty of parents out there who want their kids to get Chicken Pox just so they can avoid getting the Vaccine.

What is your definition of 'widespread' and why should we give a shit about it? What is your justification for throwing out the nonsense of some Luddite, idiotic parents wanting their kids to get sick so they can avoid a shot?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-12-26 05:15pm

Damn, I go off for christmas and some total fuckwits crawl out of the woodwork, 'tis the season to be retarded apparently.

This sort of shit is why I think that there should be a big red fucking line between business and things like health care because to be honest way too often it's simply "not economically viable" to care for people. This is probably why those on MBA's often have ethics comperable to convicted felons...

There's the quaint notion of helping others because it's the right thing to do, not because you can get 20% return on your investment in it.

Vaccines are a hillarious one to look at economically, basically there is no profit in it as Nit said, it's one sale per customer with no return purchases. That puts a hard cap on the profits available. I think it was Chris Rock that pointed out that people dont cure shit anymore they just make it so you can live with it...the last shit they cured was polio and they're still bitter about the profits they lost on that one...

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 05:15pm

SirNitram wrote:
LongVin wrote:Because HIV isn't widespread. The insurance companies are not going to want to pay for something that less then 1% of the population has and that so few people get.

I also can gurantee there are alot of people out there who won't want to have dead HIV virus being injected into their bloodstream. Look at the Chicken Pox Vaccine, there are plenty of parents out there who want their kids to get Chicken Pox just so they can avoid getting the Vaccine.
What is your definition of 'widespread' and why should we give a shit about it? What is your justification for throwing out the nonsense of some Luddite, idiotic parents wanting their kids to get sick so they can avoid a shot?

Widespread would mean that a sizeable minority of people have it have a very good chance to easilly get infected. Probably around 10% or more of the population anything that could be considered epidemic proportions would be widespread.

The point stands that people are distrustful of certain vaccines because of perceived harms the vaccine could cause.

With the Chicken Pox vaccine there were supposedely cases the vaccine caused a few very strong cases of Chicken Pox in children who were vaccinated. People wouldn't want HIV injected into there arms for the fear that they could possible become infected by a mishap.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-12-26 05:19pm

LongVin wrote:Widespread would mean that a sizeable minority of people have it have a very good chance to easilly get infected. Probably around 10% or more of the population anything that could be considered epidemic proportions would be widespread.

Well, unsurprisingly, the CDC has a different view of them. They, being professionals, have a firmer grip on the scale of it, and of course, are more relevent.

Some statistics:

* More than 40 million people have been infected with HIV worldwide since the onset of the pandemic.
* Almost 22 million have already died of AIDS, and every day, 16,000 more become infected with HIV worldwide.
* In the United States alone, approximately 900,000 are living with the disease, but up to one-third of these people are unaware of their condition.

It's not this bizarre one in ten(One in ten? Of a disease that is a death sentence? That'd be catastrophic!) standard which you yanked from your ass, but the CDC in Atlanta thinks it's widespread. I would say this is more than accurate.

The point stands that people are distrustful of certain vaccines because of perceived harms the vaccine could cause.

Wow, there are idiots. You prove this by posting, you need no examples.

With the Chicken Pox vaccine there were supposedely cases the vaccine caused a few very strong cases of Chicken Pox in children who were vaccinated. People wouldn't want HIV injected into there arms for the fear that they could possible become infected by a mishap.

Sooo.. BEtter to let lots more people die definately. Right. You're a moron.

Furthermore, you fail to address the point: That while these are the excuses handed out, they're dumb excuses. Lives hang in the balance, not cheques. But who cares! The free market does as it always does.

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 05:21pm

Edi wrote:
LongVin wrote:I didn't say the market doesn't exist for treating the virus. I was stating the difference between the market for a therapy drug and the market for a vaccine. The therapy market will have a constant income and a core group of people who have to take it. Whereas the vaccine will not have the same required market.

Most vaccines people get are required by law that they receive them. i.e. Hep shots. If you want to go to school or get certain jobs you need to bring them proof you have been immunized to those diseases.

As for the flu its apples and oranges. You have a reasonable chance to get the flu during the year simply because its easily spread through coughing and other day to day contact with other people. Even with the flu being so easilly spread theres still plenty of people every year who go "I can get by without a flu shot." How many people do you think would voluntarily get an HIV shot when the chance of them getting the disease is nearly non existant?
You really are one dumb fuck. The reason a lot of people don't take flu shots is that there are several dhundred different strains of flu and it mutates constantly. So getting a flu shot that was based off of a particular strain is no guarantee that you won't get infected with another strain. Furthermore, most flu strains don't cause a lot of problems unless you are old, very young or in poor health to begin with.

AIDS, on the other hand, is something that WILL kill you eventually (or the other diseases that can get in after AIDS has fiucked up your immune system will if you wantto get technincal, but AIDS is still the underlying cause). Treating even a small population of AIDS victims with therapy is fucking expensive, and in places where there is actual universal healthcare, it's the state that ends up paying a shitload of that money. If everyone is immunized (which doesn't cost a lot after the vaccine production has been ramped up), you don't need to deal with the therapy costs of any new patients. There won't be as many people out of the workforce due to AIDS, and the healthcare resources used for AIDS therapy can be used someplace else where they are needed. Never mind that a lot of people would get the vaccine just to be safe, to be free from worry.

Most vaccines that are required by law are to prevent infectious diseases from spreading and to reduce public health care costs. So you have no fucking argument on any avenue other than corporate greed.

Edi

Its true that flu vaccines only prevent against the most common variants of the Flu but people don't get them because they feel they don't need them.

And people won't want to get AIDs vaccines because they know they won't need it because they aren't going to be putting themselves into situations where they can get AIDs. There will of course be people who will get it to just be "safe" but then again I gurantee most people will feel they just don't need it.

And in the grand scheme of things compared to other diseases AIDs isn't very infectious, it can only be spread through certain acts. It does not effect a large amount of the population or pose a significant risk to most of the population.

Post by **Edi** » 2005-12-26 05:22pm

LongVin wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
LongVin wrote:Because HIV isn't widespread. The insurance companies are not going to want to pay for something that less then 1% of the population has and that so few people get.

I also can gurantee there are alot of people out there who won't want to have dead HIV virus being injected into their bloodstream. Look at the Chicken Pox Vaccine, there are plenty of parents out there who want their kids to get Chicken Pox just so they can avoid getting the Vaccine.
What is your definition of 'widespread' and why should we give a shit about it? What is your justification for throwing out the nonsense of some Luddite, idiotic parents wanting their kids to get sick so they can avoid a shot?
Widespread would mean that a sizeable minority of people have it have a very good chance to easilly get infected. Probably around 10% or more of the population anything that could be considered epidemic proportions would be widespread.

The point stands that people are distrustful of certain vaccines because of perceived harms the vaccine could cause.

With the Chicken Pox vaccine there were supposedely cases the vaccine caused a few very strong cases of Chicken Pox in children who were vaccinated. People wouldn't want HIV injected into there arms for the fear that they could possible become infected by a mishap.

You really are fucking stupid. There are places in Africa where the infection rate is between 20 and 35% of the adult population. Or was it so that people with brown or black skin living far away don't count for shit in your wolrd view? Those figures are dragging those countries' economies down, which causes economic harm to the countries themselves, their region and also to the developed world.

Edi

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2005-12-26 05:27pm

Nitram, I've known schools and APARTMENT COMPLEXES to requite shot records. Hell, I think you guys remember my grousing about my needing to get shot twice because of my attempts to enroll into learning institutions coming into violent collision with Hurricane Katrina, resulting in the destruction of my shot records and requiring I get a second round of MMRs and Tetanus boosters. Ouch.

Post by **Edi** » 2005-12-26 05:27pm

LongVin wrote:Its true that flu vaccines only prevent against the most common variants of the Flu but people don't get them because they feel they don't need them.

And people won't want to get AIDs vaccines because they know they won't need it because they aren't going to be putting themselves into situations where they can get AIDs. There will of course be people who will get it to just be "safe" but then again I gurantee most people will feel they just don't need it.

And in the grand scheme of things compared to other diseases AIDs isn't very infectious, it can only be spread through certain acts. It does not effect a large amount of the population or pose a significant risk to most of the population.

Look, more baseless claims. I foresee a swift custom titling or ban for this dumb fuckwit.

Edi

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2005-12-26 05:28pm

SirNitram wrote:
LongVin wrote:Widespread would mean that a sizeable minority of people have it have a very good chance to easilly get infected. Probably around 10% or more of the population anything that could be considered epidemic proportions would be widespread.
Well, unsurprisingly, the CDC has a different view of them. They, being professionals, have a firmer grip on the scale of it, and of course, are more relevent.

Some statistics:

* More than 40 million people have been infected with HIV worldwide since the onset of the pandemic.
* Almost 22 million have already died of AIDS, and every day, 16,000 more become infected with HIV worldwide.
* In the United States alone, approximately 900,000 are living with the disease, but up to one-third of these people are unaware of their condition.
It's not this bizarre one in ten(One in ten? Of a disease that is a death sentence? That'd be catastrophic!) standard which you yanked from your ass, but the CDC in Atlanta thinks it's widespread. I would say this is more than accurate.

The point stands that people are distrustful of certain vaccines because of perceived harms the vaccine could cause.
Wow, there are idiots. You prove this by posting, you need no examples.

With the Chicken Pox vaccine there were supposedely cases the vaccine caused a few very strong cases of Chicken Pox in children who were vaccinated. People wouldn't want HIV injected into there arms for the fear that they could possible become infected by a mishap.
Sooo.. BEtter to let lots more people die definately. Right. You're a moron.

Furthermore, you fail to address the point: That while these are the excuses handed out, they're dumb excuses. Lives hang in the balance, not cheques. But who cares! The free market does as it always does.

And of those 40 million most of them are outside of the developed world. Also AIDs is a constantly overhyped virus. When you consider the population of the Eath at 6 billion people 40 million is a drop in the bucket.

And while lives hang in the balance the economic worth of most of those lives is nill. They can not afford medications nor can the people in the country afford the vaccine. They're is no incentive to develop a vaccine for the vast majority of AIDs cases, when the medical establishment can make money by controlling the existing cases within the developed world.