It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Drug makers putting complete AIDS treatment in one daily pill: Third World Solution?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Two major drug companies have issued statement that they will work together to create a combination AIDS pill that would only have to be taken once a day. Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead would take the medication that typically are taken 4 times a day into a once a day regimen.

 



www.kron4.com
TRENTON, N.J. Taking one pill a day is a lot easier than downing several of them.

Two competing drug companies say they'll work together on creating the first all-in-one AIDS pill.

Experts are hailing the collaboration by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead (GIHL'-ee-ad) Sciences, which would combine three widely used drugs into one pill to be taken once a day.

That's a far cry from earlier versions that forced patients to take 25 to 30 pills a day in specific combinations at specific times, keeping many patients from taking their medicine.

Current treatments require patients to take up to four pills a day.

The three drugs involved are already on the market. A Bristol-Myers Squibb spokesman says that means the combination pill could be approved and on the market in 2006.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This could help with the fight against AIDS worldwide. One medication versus 3 alone is simpler from a supply and logistics standpoint. Combine that with once a day dosage and you may have the holy grail for treatment. However, all of that is meaningless if you cannot prevent the spread. This will do nothing for that. Why keep it at bay so it can be spread? You MUST have an aggressive prevention campaign. The Vatican should take note, this means condoms.




posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Its about time that they put into better used our tax payer money when they do research after all is our money what they used.

But then they make their pills and sells them to us for an arm and a leg.

No control at all on these pharmaceuticals.

I guess they are risking making less money with "in all" pill than making the people having to spend money in many of them, or perhaps the finished product will still be over prices but people with the need will disregard the prices for convenience.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Its about time that they put into better used our tax payer money when they do research after all is our money what they used.

But then they make their pills and sells them to us for an arm and a leg.

No control at all on these pharmaceuticals.

I guess they are risking making less money with "in all" pill than making the people having to spend money in many of them, or perhaps the finished product will still be over prices but people with the need will disregard the prices for convenience.


Marge,
I do think you are right in what you are saying. I doubt they would have ever agreed to do this if there was not bigger proffits in it. I sometimes wonder if there is a cure for the desise out there but no one wants to relice it because there is to much money with the way things are now.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Any chance some big executives got AIDs? It's like something I heard somebody say; How do you find a cure for cancer? "Give cancer to the heads of several major corporations, by the end of the year you'll have several different cures." I'm pretty excited about this pill. I wonder, if AIDs becomes easier to control will research money go to cancer instead of finding a cure for AIDs?



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Any chance some big executives got AIDs? It's like something I heard somebody say; How do you find a cure for cancer? "Give cancer to the heads of several major corporations, by the end of the year you'll have several different cures." I'm pretty excited about this pill. I wonder, if AIDs becomes easier to control will research money go to cancer instead of finding a cure for AIDs?


Marge,
this does sound like a good new pill. But from what I read it is still no cure, just a treatment. I like your idea of cureing cancer, and I actually think it might be proven efective if it were to happen with aids



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Red Golem

Marge,
this does sound like a good new pill. But from what I read it is still no cure, just a treatment. I like your idea of cureing cancer, and I actually think it might be proven efective if it were to happen with aids


We all know that pharmaceuticals are all for the profiting of our sick, that is why is such a hot topic.

Is not control as to how much they can charge for the "discoveries" that they do while using our tax payer money for research.

If the pharmaceutical industry is ready to bring a new pill, "occurs no cure" is because it will probably bring them enough profit to make it worth it.

Even if it mean cutting on the used of other pills to make one.

I still think that we as Americans has been taking advantage off when it comes to the health care system and specially pharmaceuticals.

And is not control by the government either.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Marg, but then by who? Yes there is no doubt a profit angle to this, but if it can benifit others then thats great. The amount of medcine that the private industy has developed is staggering, and it has occured as a for profit venture. If they were able to find a cure for cancer, they would do so and put it out on the market as soon as teh FDA would allow it. Why? because of the staggering profitability of it. How many of us would shell out 50K for a cancer vaccine that would immunize us agains most forms? I would be the first in line. The only solution I see is to have non profit drug companies. However, that too will require alot of work.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Actually I found out how our tax payer money was gone into research after watching a section in the congress about that same problem, pharmaceuticals does not do anything if it does not come with a very good profit.

The government as now has not put any regulation on them since Bush got in the white house.

I bet that if a cure for cancer was to be found they will probably lose a lot of money on all the pills they have been making to control it and to make life better for the ones that has to live with it.

And probably the cure will come from another country and it would take for ever to be approved with all the bureaucracy and BS we have in the US.

Remember, pharmaceuticals here in the US does not look for cures but rather for remedies.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I think Marge has everything about right. The Corp. do not put a new drug on the market unless it has a bigger proffit then the an old one it is replaceing, or just a very large proffit. And the Corp, do not want a cure, there is to much proffit in just the research alone, not to menchen the loss of the proffit from the treatment that alread exists. There is a book titled "natural cures they dont want you to know about". It is supose to talk a lot about this. If I had a copy of the book I would start a link to discuss it, but I dont. But if any one would like to coment on that it would be apreashiated.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join