If you owned a pharmaceutical company, would you cure AIDS?

vbimport

#1

The average doubling time IIRC for HIV is 2 years (by contrast, FYI SARS is 2 weeks, but that is another matter). This means that on average, each HIV+ person infects another person within two years. This means that (assuming a human population of 6 billion, no HIV+ genocidal policies to ‘contain’ the spread, no cure, the doubling rate being constant, etc.) the human race will be entirely infected within ~65 years of the first person being infected.

If you owned a pharmaceutical company, would you see the need to produce a permanent cure? People who are HIV+, if they can afford it, are permanently hooked on anti-retroviral drugs - they will pay for it or the ‘withdrawal’ syptoms is getting full blown AIDS sooner. Imagine the size of the market…6 billion people being hooked on your products. Imagine the profits.

If you had a permanent cure, would you release it? From the point of view of a Machiavellian CEO (I make no claim to be such a person - just speculation), someone being infected with HIV may well just be seen as ‘marketing’.


#2

I am pretty sure if the corporate CEO’s of these companies wanted to, they could cure most of the known diseases within 10 years or less. However, it is much more profitable for them to keep the diseases afloat. As long as they dont get it…


#3

Somehow if people make such decisions for mankind , it always backfires on them. I’d rather make the right decision.


#4

I think that if they did have a cure or the resources to find it yet, they would release the information. Most everyone has been (or will be) affected by AIDS at some point in their life. I can’t imagine anyone holding back a cure for something like AIDS.

Besides, the common cold has so much more medicines and things like kleenex, and many more people affected. Plus no real damage. If I would not release a cure it would be for that.


#5

Sure, they would hold it back. That’s capitalism. Or another example: why can big oil managers continue with polluting the air, even when they know it will affect their own children on long terms? I have never understood all of this, but maybe that’s because I think different.


#6

Apparently the medicine industry is just as capitalism-oriented as the oil industry, so don’t expect too much… :frowning:


#7

I’ve heard stories of scientists/researchers making breakthroughs for potential cures for incurable diseases, and medical companies buying the rights to this so that they can “burry” them indefinitely, but i d rather prefer not to believe them, cause that would just make me lose faith for what i wanna do in my life.


#8

maybe that’s because I think different.

Maybe it’s because you aren’t a monster. I prefer to stay just shy of jaded and have a bit of faith in my fellow man, but if people like that exist then what hope do we have as a people?


#9

It’s not reasonable to say that eventually everyone will be infected with HIV, as it is possible to take extreme preventative measures. Less so something like SARS. (Apparently SARS is the name of a soft drink in Taiwan - have been having PR problems recently…)


#10

Originally posted by DryBaboon
It’s not reasonable to say that eventually everyone will be infected with HIV, as it is possible to take extreme preventative measures. Less so something like SARS. (Apparently SARS is the name of a soft drink in Taiwan - have been having PR problems recently…)

Indeed it isn’t. But, note my assumptions:

Originally posted by DA
…(assuming a human population of 6 billion, no HIV+ genocidal policies to ‘contain’ the spread, no cure, the doubling rate being constant, etc.)…

In any case, this calculation obviously resides mostly in the theoretical realm. But for a quick and dirty illustration of why drug companies have much to benefit from prolonging the lives of HIV+ people so that they can infect others, as well as the scale of the market of anti-retroviral drug addicts, it suffices.


#11

DA - Of course; I concur with what you have said.

Do we think it is possible that AIDS cure research does not receive much attention, and thus perhaps not much funding, because it is still perceived as a disease caught by gay people or people having unprotected sex? Thus an “immoral” disease? I’m sure you could find evangelical sites saying that in all seriousness.
And the epidemic mainly focussed on Africa - does that make the West take it less seriously?


#12

Originally posted by Hemispasm
I’ve heard stories of scientists/researchers making breakthroughs for potential cures for incurable diseases, and medical companies buying the rights to this so that they can “burry” them indefinitely, but i d rather prefer not to believe them, cause that would just make me lose faith for what i wanna do in my life.

Funny how a couple of months ago I had a post that was seen as cynical and “conspiracy-dwelling” that was sharply critized by a certain regular poster here. It was about the space shuttle disaster…

Anyway…

I totally believe there’s that possibility of “control” of cures etc in the medical field…Every field (Oil has been referred to) has that BIG potential to maintain the “good ole boys” policy of power mongering and manipulation of ideas that would benefit greater mankind…It’s so sad to realize how greedy and power retaining those who do this can be.

Buying up ideas that would undermine the status quo of “monopolies” happen all the time…put in a little box to never, unless the company can make more money from day one, see the light of day…

I’m not paranoid to believe this is the only existence of business “ethics” but I know it happens more often than the “sheeple” out there realize…:frowning:


#13

aids research, i should hope, receives as much attention as cancer research.

//about assumptions

is that also assuming everyone infected lives forever, the worlds population is constant, and of course, that this machiavellian ceo and everyone associated with a potential cure would keep it to themselves, 30 odd years from now, when everyone is infected?


#14

Vaguely on the subject of corporate conspiracies:
I asked in my local photographic shop if there was such a thing as a digital receptor that could fit inside a standard SLR camera. I figured if no one had thought of it I was on to something. No, the chap said, someone has invented this already and patented it, and he was immediately bought out by the digital camera manufacturers, who buried the product without trace. Far better to get everyone to buy a whole new digital camera - and one that needs to be upgraded every year in an artificially slow price reduction path…
I’m just saying. It’s not outrageously immoral - just capitalist.


#15

the car companies also have a carburator that can get 150 miles to the gallon.


#16

(Puts on spy gear) Well i’m off to GM.


#17

Originally posted by DryBaboon

Apparently SARS is the name of a soft drink in Taiwan - have been having PR problems recently…)
Strangely enough,here in the states,there used to be a diet chocolate candy called AYDS,and I’m SURE there
was a PR nightmare for the manufacturer as well,since I just don’t see it in the stores like i used to.


#18

Something to ponder…

If companies released a cure for Aids, the pharmaceutical companies would not any money off the medications.

If the cold cure was developed and released they would not make any money. Same thing with cancer research. But IMHO
I would release the cure for these things if I had them.

And another thing. Hospitals would close and lots of people out of work. I know for a fact a hospital marks up little things like the tubes for IV’s when the billing to the patients occur. I worked in a hospital for 8 years and the angiocaths IV needle was purchased by the hospital at about 5.50$ a piece. Then it was marked up 300% when it was billed. Comes out to about 16.50 a piece