 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / July 2004Stockholders share not Healthcare: U.S. taken to task over AIDS drug policy
Amazing isn't it, people dying from illnesses that could be beaten if STOCKHOLDERS SHARE would just take a back seat to HEALTHCARE. In the meantime, BILLIONS are spent developing lifestyle drugs, like statins and viagra. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040712/AIDS12/T PHealth/ "As a result, U.S.-funded AIDS programs in poor countries are able to buy only those drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." U.S. taken to task over AIDS drug policy Insistence on buying only FDA-approved medicine draws fire at annual meeting By STEPHANIE NOLEN Monday, July 12, 2004 - Page A3 BANGKOK -- The 15th International AIDS Conference opened with a mood of tension in the Thai capital yesterday, with the United States standing increasingly isolated in its insistence on the use of brand-name drugs for the treatment of people with AIDS. Activists and leaders of the United Nations AIDS treatment efforts were critical of the U.S. program, saying it is spending two to three times more than necessary to supply patients in Asia and Africa with brand-name anti-retroviral drugs from large drug companies. Randall Tobias, the U.S. government's global AIDS co-ordinator, said Washington's program is open to the use of generic drugs. "Our policy is to buy the least expensive drugs we can find anywhere in the world -- without regard to whether they are brand-name or generic," as long as those drugs are safe, he told reporters. But Mr. Tobias, a former head of the pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly and Co., also insisted that there should be no "double standard" between the drugs used in poor countries and the West. As a result, U.S.-funded AIDS programs in poor countries are able to buy only those drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The answer is using condoms and preventing the spread of HIV. Takes drugs does not do anything to transmission and only makes it worse. People don't want to be tested because of the stigma associated with the diagnoses as a result more people spread it and are thrown out of their own home with that diagnosis. If you think the statins are dangerous then try the HIV drugs and their side effects. As with statins HIV drugs need to be monitored with blood tests which are too costly for third world countries. Unless those problems are addressed to simply put it on the door step of the drug companies is stupid. > Amazing isn't it, people dying from illnesses that could be beaten if > STOCKHOLDERS SHARE would just take a back seat to HEALTHCARE. In the > meantime, BILLIONS are spent developing lifestyle drugs, like statins > and viagra. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040712/AIDS12/T PHealth/ > "As a result, U.S.-funded AIDS programs in poor > countries are able to buy only those drugs [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > only those drugs approved by the U.S. Food and > Drug Administration. >The answer is using condoms and preventing the spread of HIV. Takes drugs >does not do anything to transmission and only makes it worse. No, that's untrue. ARV lowers viral load also in the seminal compartment. Use of condoms will be necessary, in addition, of course. >People don't >want to be tested because of the stigma associated with the diagnoses as a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >problems are addressed to simply put it on the door step of the drug >companies is stupid. As to ARV vs. statin toxicities, I agree. However, the rest of your comment is incorrect. There are means to evaluate CD4 counts and viral load (heat-dissociated p24, for example) that provide the basic information that is needed for managing HIV disease in the context of ARV. However, diagnostic costs, like drugs, have been artificially driven into the stratosphere by the out-of-control pharmaceutical industry. They are SO greedy, they are willing to kill and harm millions to assure their profits. That is genocide. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > > There are means to evaluate CD4 counts and viral load > (heat-dissociated p24, for example) that provide the basic information [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > George M. Carter As I said unless those other things are addressed taking a pill will not do anything but breed resistance in the non compliance because of the nausea and diarrhea and you name it. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> There are means to evaluate CD4 counts and viral load [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >anything but breed resistance in the non compliance because of the nausea >and diarrhea and you name it. People don't have much sex when suffering those particular symptoms, I can assure you. NOT taking the ARV will not reduce transmission rates as people have a long incubation period (from 2-8 years--sometimes longer). It is better to treat because A) It is humane (which should be enough); B) It reduces viral load; C) it prevents early death, the numbers of which are destabilizing economies. Adherence is an important piece. As is food, clean water, trained outreach workers, nurses and physicians. These are all quite do-able. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> > >As I said unless those other things are addressed taking a pill will not do > >anything but breed resistance in the non compliance because of the nausea > >and diarrhea and you name it. > > People don't have much sex when suffering those particular symptoms, I > can assure you. Thats why they are non compliant and only take sporadic drugs. > NOT taking the ARV will not reduce transmission rates as people have a > long incubation period (from 2-8 years--sometimes longer). It is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > George M. Carter George the only answer is in finding a vaccine. Historically within the context of third world countries that is the only thing they will be able to afford. It is the only answer that makes any sense. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> >> >As I said unless those other things are addressed taking a pill will not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Thats why they are non compliant and only take sporadic drugs. Adherence is a problem. Interestingly, the studies in poor, rural and other communities from Haiti to Africa show very high rates of adherence. Limited adherence among some is not a reason to deny treatment. >> NOT taking the ARV will not reduce transmission rates as people have a >> long incubation period (from 2-8 years--sometimes longer). It is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >afford. >It is the only answer that makes any sense. I agree it is the BEST answer--preferably one that acts both as a preventative and as a therapeutic (although *stimulating* immunity may be the a.s-backwards thing to do in HIV disease--recent data, e.g., sooty mangabeys, suggest that immune activation may be why CD4+ cells die....In sooty mangabeys, they have active, productive infections of SIV that has been around--but their immune system essentially ignores it....transfer that SIV to a macaque, the imm sys recognises it but with the consequence of CD4 loss and the development of AIDS.) In the meantime, though, we need prevention AND treatment. George M. Carter HIV has never been isolated and thus the HIV/AIDS connection has never met Koch's Postulates. TC > The answer is using condoms and preventing the spread of HIV. Takes drugs > does not do anything to transmission and only makes it worse. People don't [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > only those drugs approved by the U.S. Food and > > Drug Administration. > HIV has never been isolated and thus the HIV/AIDS connection has never > met Koch's Postulates. > > TC I answered that previously moron but I hope you continue to mention it in your posts because I want people to see what an idiot you are. No one would even consider taking their dog to you for medcial advice much less themselves. > > The answer is using condoms and preventing the spread of HIV. Takes drugs > > does not do anything to transmission and only makes it worse. People don't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > meantime, BILLIONS are spent developing lifestyle drugs, like statins > > > and viagra. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040712/AIDS12/T PHealth/ > > > "As a result, U.S.-funded AIDS programs in poor > > > countries are able to buy only those drugs [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > > only those drugs approved by the U.S. Food and > > > Drug Administration. > > HIV has never been isolated and thus the HIV/AIDS connection has never > > met Koch's Postulates. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > even consider taking their dog to you for medcial advice much less > themselves. Can you show me the paper that shows definitively that Koch's postulates have been definitively met in the case of HIV/AIDS and/or shows that HIV has been properly isolated? TC >HIV has never been isolated and thus the HIV/AIDS connection has never >met Koch's Postulates. This is nonsense, my friend. HIV HAS been isolated. And HIV disease DOES lead to AIDS and DOES fulfill Koch's postulates. George M. Carter > >HIV has never been isolated and thus the HIV/AIDS connection has never > >met Koch's Postulates. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > George M. Carter I notice that you make no references to published papers that show this to be the case. TC >> >HIV has never been isolated and thus the HIV/AIDS connection has never >> >met Koch's Postulates. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I notice that you make no references to published papers that show >this to be the case. There are numerous such papers. See, e.g., Science. 1994 Dec 9;266(5191):1647. Another: Harden VA. Koch's postulates and the etiology of AIDS: an historical perspective. Hist Philos Life Sci. 1992;14(2):249-69. See also: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/12.htm George M. Carter > >> >HIV has never been isolated and thus the HIV/AIDS connection has never > >> >met Koch's Postulates. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > George M. Carter Koch's Postulates don't work that way. The paper you referenced pieces together a variety of unrelated events that give the appearance of HIV/AIDS meeting Koch's Postulates. Here are Koch's Postulates: 1. The specific organism should be shown to be present in all cases of animals suffering from a specific disease but should not be found in healthy animals. TC: Many with Acquired Immune Deficiency-type Syndromes are not HIV positive. In North America you can have all the medical hallmarks of AIDS and still not be diagnosed with AIDS if you are HIV negative. Many with HIV never develop AIDS. In parts of Africa, HIV is not even part of the definition of AIDS. 2. The specific microorganism should be isolated from the diseased animal and grown in pure culture on artificial laboratory media. TC:Never been done. If it was done, show me the paper. Show me the micrograph of the isolated and purified retro-virus. 3. This freshly isolated microorganism, when inoculated into a healthy laboratory animal, should cause the same disease seen in the original animal. TC: never been done. 4. The microorganism should be reisolated in pure culture from the experimental infection. TC: never been done. Furthermore, Koch's Postulates cannot be met by showing various unrelated events and tieing them together. Koch's Postulates involves taking an infected animal and extracting the and isolating the pathogen from it, then taking that very same isolated pathogen and using it to innoculate another specific animal, then once that very same animal develops the symptoms, the pathogen is then re-isolated from that animal. The example you showed me makes a mockery of Koch's Postulates and is about as nebulous a piece of pseudo-science as there exists. TC snip.. >Koch's Postulates don't work that way. The paper you referenced >pieces together a variety of unrelated events that give the appearance >of HIV/AIDS meeting Koch's Postulates. Ah, I think some of the people referenced might have an idea of how Koch's postulates work. They reflect a framework, not a set of laws. >Here are Koch's Postulates: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Many with HIV never develop AIDS. In parts of Africa, HIV is not even >part of the definition of AIDS. These are not rational arguments. Many people with congestion and coughing are not suffering from tuberculosis. It does not mean Mycobacterium tuberculosis does not exist. Many people with TB have a chronic condition which does not cause disease (although it may reactivate). Indeed, the horrible thing about HIV is that so FEW infected individuals (maybe 8-12%) are very slow or non-progressors. >2. The specific microorganism should be isolated from the diseased >animal and grown in pure culture on artificial laboratory media. > >TC:Never been done. If it was done, show me the paper. Show me the >micrograph of the isolated and purified retro-virus. Oh, horseshit. The denialist view on isolation demands that a sucrose density gradient test be used that is from the 70s--and curiously one of the authors they cite is a woman named Francoise Barre-Sinoussi. Guess what? SHE is the discoverer of LAV (later HIV-1) from Pasteur Institute! It's just nonsense. I won't show you ONE paper--there are DOZENS of papers (and micrographs) that show HIV exists. >3. This freshly isolated microorganism, when inoculated into a healthy >laboratory animal, should cause the same disease seen in the original >animal. > >TC: never been done. Yes it has. Chimpanzees. >4. The microorganism should be reisolated in pure culture from the >experimental infection. > >TC: never been done. Yes it has. >Furthermore, Koch's Postulates cannot be met by showing various >unrelated events and tieing them together. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >The example you showed me makes a mockery of Koch's Postulates and is >about as nebulous a piece of pseudo-science as there exists. Actually, what you have just projectile vomited is just denialist horseshit that has been refuted time and time again. Sadly, the few HIV+ people I have known who bought this codswallop died of AIDS. Including a big proponent of this nonsense, David Pasquarelli. You don't believe me? Cool. I hope you don't have to do your own "n of 1" study of getting infected and watching your magicaly mystery CD4 cells plummet to zero and the concomitant and often lethal infections that arise. Tom, I agree with you on a lot of things. But not THIS. THIS one deflects from so many more important and horrifying situations that ARE genuine horrors. Pharma's despicable acts in blocking access to generic medications. The failure to do research on tropical diseases. the lies of patents inducing R&D (when pipelines are narrowing). Drugs have value. They have limitations. Just like botanicals and minerals and prayer and diet and stress reduction and love. As a person living with Hepatitis C, I can tell you, I am interested in what works and understanding its benefits, costs and limitations. And having so many HIV+ friends and losing so many, I am quite sure that HIV exists and causes AIDS. George M. Carter George M. Carter |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.