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.

 

Another HIV 'breakthrough'....

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I don't know how many times we've heard of a "breakthrough" in finding the cure to AIDS or a vaccine to HIV. I sometimes wonder if they've actually found the solution, but Big Pharma is just releasing "breakthroughs" in stages, much like how computer chip-makers release "new" processors into the market in a bid to gain more profits.

Anyway, the latest in HIV research (that is released to the press) reports that they've found a way to block the DNA targets that the HIV bug uses to 'hijack the genetic machinery of human cells".


'DNA target' to block HIV found

American scientists have discovered how a molecule controls HIV's ability to hijack the genetic machinery of human cells.

The finding gives experts a new target for blocking the virus, according to the journal Nature Medicine.

The molecule, called LEDGF, is a cellular protein that dictates where HIV can integrate into a cell's DNA.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So what's the conspiracy angle? I think they've "discovered" this years ago. I mean Big Pharma makes boatloads of cash, and they've been "researching" this bug for years now. What did they do with all that cash? Don't tell me they're that inefficient?

I really believe they're following the computer-chip maker model of business -- release new innovations in stages to maximize the profit-demand curve.

Give me a convincing argument that this isn't the case with Big Pharma and medicine.




posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
There's one major problem with your "withholding information to make more money" idea. Someone outside of US-UK would have found it. Torino and Milano are major cancer research centers. If they had found it, or Germany, France, Spain, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, etc., where they have socialized healthcare, the government would have subsidized a cure and pushed it into the market to cut their costs from having to constantly treat HIV patients. The USA is really thje only country that makes any money off of not curing cancer and HIV.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
There's one major problem with your "withholding information to make more money" idea. Someone outside of US-UK would have found it.
~MFP


Maybe. Didn't I.G. Farben develop a process for extracting petrol from coal during WWII? Aren't they a German corporation? Doesn't Germany still import oil? Don't their citizens pay a fairly hefty price for it?
These sorts of things (AIDS cure, cancer cure, etc.) often pass beyond the realms of "national interest". They lie more in the realms of power, wealth and control. Therefore, I see the OP's suggestions as being entirely plausible.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Maybe. Didn't I.G. Farben develop a process for extracting petrol from coal during WWII? Aren't they a German corporation? Doesn't Germany still import oil? Don't their citizens pay a fairly hefty price for it?
These sorts of things (AIDS cure, cancer cure, etc.) often pass beyond the realms of "national interest". They lie more in the realms of power, wealth and control. Therefore, I see the OP's suggestions as being entirely plausible.


That has absolutely nothing to do with my post on social healthcare. See, social healthcare means that the GOVERNMENT pays for all health needs of it's citizens. Not the individual, the government. Now, wouldn't it make mroe sense for a government to pay, oh, $200 per person for a cancer vaccine instead of several thousands a month per person for chemo? Same goes for HIV. One vaccine, or years of drug cocktails. Hmm, I wonder which one the government would rather fund?

~MFP



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc



See, social healthcare means that the GOVERNMENT pays for all health needs of it's citizens.

~MFP


Sure, maybe. I just don't trust governments that much to believe that they always have our best interests at heart. And further, I don't think that just because a government is socialist in outlook it's going to do what is good for it's people. Witness the Soviet Union.
You may be right, there may be no conspiracy. However, I disagree with the idea that a government, socialist or not, is always going to do the right thing. Also, what I was alluding to was the idea that there may be other "powers" above and beyond that of national governments. They may be the ones that are actually calling the shots (no pun intended).



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Sure, maybe. I just don't trust governments that much to believe that they always have our best interests at heart. And further, I don't think that just because a government is socialist in outlook it's going to do what is good for it's people. Witness the Soviet Union.
You may be right, there may be no conspiracy. However, I disagree with the idea that a government, socialist or not, is always going to do the right thing. Also, what I was alluding to was the idea that there may be other "powers" above and beyond that of national governments. They may be the ones that are actually calling the shots (no pun intended).



You're totally missing the point here. Do some research on social healthcare. The government has little control over what the money is actually spent on. They allocate X number of euro to healthcare, each hospital is then given a budget for the year, and then that's all the government sees. The don't see "Oh, well, Maria was given ampicillin 3 times this year, we should switch her to something more expensive." If anything, the government is looking for ways to CUT costs while still providing healthcare to everyone. They do not want to take care of chronic conditions or treat something with a non-generic drug. What don't you get? The social healthcare system is NOT a profit gig in any way, shape, or form. It is a cash negative program. They figure if EVERYONE has access to basic medical care, the nation as a whole will be heathier and more productive, this generating more money in the end. It's the same reason some companies provide incredible health benefits for their employees in the states. They lose a little money up front for every employee they hire, but at the same time their employees are happier and healthier, thus increasing productivity. It's trul a very basic concept.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
hmm part about withholding information interesting.does anyone know how Magic Johnson got cured from AIDS?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc


You're totally missing the point here. What don't you get? The social healthcare system is NOT a profit gig in any way, shape, or form. It is a cash negative program.
~MFP


Ok, ok...I'm not saying you are are definitely wrong. You might be absolutely correct. However, a lot of the theories/conspiracies out there indicate that someone or something is manipulating various concerns for their own interests.

Another example: One of the things commonly said about the NWO, et al. is that they felt that certain "inferior" races needed to be eliminated, or at least pruned down. Supposedly, one of those races was the African race. AIDS, from most accounts, originated in Africa. Isn't there a possibility that AIDS is an artificially induced population control measure to further such ends? Further, isn't it possible that various governments would take "acceptable losses" in their own countries to achieve such ends? Therefore, a cure would be withheld. Possibly for purely monetary reasons or in combination with other interests. Money, as indicated in the OP, is one possible reason.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Further, isn't it possible that various governments would take "acceptable losses" in their own countries to achieve such ends? Therefore, a cure would be withheld. Possibly for purely monetary reasons or in combination with other interests. Money, as indicated in the OP, is one possible reason.


I'm going to try to explain this one more time. A socialized healthcare system LOSES money due to cancer. Literally hundred of billions of dollars. The medical ethics text I have in front of me right now estimates Italian Governmental healthcare costs are right at one trillion euro. Now, if were were to find a one shot cure for cancer and were able to stop cancer treatments, that would cut healthcare costs down to, let's say, 700 billion euro. You don't think the EU would like to be able to say they saved each country over 300 billion euro? I don't see how you can possible MAKE money off of chronic medical treatment in a SOCIAL healthcare setting. Think outside your ever widening borders, please.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Ok *sigh*...
You win, socialized medicine is the answer. It will always fight any wrongs and injustices it finds-free of cost. Furthermore, if any potential cure for any malady is found it will immediately be dispensed to the masses, for the good of all. No power interest or shadow government can ever stand in the way of socialized medicine. One day all ills and sickness will fall to it's mighty sword.

Now do I get it?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   


Ok *sigh*...
You win, socialized medicine is the answer. It will always fight any wrongs and injustices it finds-free of cost. Furthermore, if any potential cure for any malady is found it will immediately be dispensed to the masses, for the good of all. No power interest or shadow government can ever stand in the way of socialized medicine. One day all ills and sickness will fall to it's mighty sword.

Now do I get it?


That's not the point I'm trying to raise. I was showing how you have a knack for ignoring every other post in a thread. The fact the the government picks up the tab on healthcare in a social setting means that if there is anyway to cut costs, they will do it. There is no benfit in NOT doing it. I'm sorry that's too hard for you to grasp. Go back to rooting for King Bush.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc


Go back to rooting for King Bush.

~MFP


I don't desire for this to get nasty. In fact, I actually admire the way you defend your viewpoint with such fervor. However, I would please ask you not to attribute any beliefs or ideas to my person without cause. If you want to attack any of my ideas or opinions posted, great! That's what brings good discourse. I however, have never pledged fealty to GB. In fact, just the opposite. I am very concerned with his agenda.
That being said, please consider that if I didn't think your views had some validity, I wouldn't bother to respond. Otherwise I'm quite happy with your responses and I apologize if my sarcastic response was not received in the manner I expected.

[edit on 26-2-2006 by passenger]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I didn't read the whole thread, but I agree with the money part. They'll never cure cancer or aids. It's to profitable! Anyway you slice it, anyway. And Yes, most countries have socialized medicine, but someone down the road stills pays for it. And where do you think most medicine comes from, most of it, USA. Big Pharma companies! It really isn't that hard to seek & see the truth when you really look at it.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Also I just found this link, I think it's BS personally...

www.worldnetdaily.com...



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Here's an interesting article. HIV cure?



news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Has anyone heard anything more about this doctor? Has he publicly injected himself with HIV?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
What? Its impossible to cure cancer since cancer is caused by cells in your body replicating too fast. Anyways as for AIDS/HIV dosent the AIDS virus occupy cells that have an open port on the cell? Then after getting on the cells port it takes over the cell and then makes more AIDS virus. Isnt there a way to occupy the port with a pseudo virus that blocks AIDS from docking and replicating. Sorry I have to brush up those my languauge may be a little too simple. EDIT: Is that what they are saying in the article that they are able to block AIDS from attaching onto a cell and replicating? If so ive been thinking thats the way to cure AIDS since 2003.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by PsychoSteve85]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by blkhad
I didn't read the whole thread, but I agree with the money part. They'll never cure cancer or aids. It's to profitable! Anyway you slice it, anyway. And Yes, most countries have socialized medicine, but someone down the road stills pays for it. And where do you think most medicine comes from, most of it, USA. Big Pharma companies! It really isn't that hard to seek & see the truth when you really look at it.


Oh thank so much you for stating the bleeding obvious!

Cost to 'government' = payments to industries.

The money doesn't just vanish into thin air, it ends up in (healthy) peoples pockets.

We're not just talking big pharma. here but the petro and plastics companies that make 'tools of the trade', linen and laundry companies, paper and printer companies that produce those useless "how to cope and get help" pamphlets, hotels, travel and catering companies for all those 'expert' forums, well you get my drift.

How much more would it 'cost' governments to put all these folk on unemployment?

Then of course there is also the fact that government leaders have private investments with these companies they pay their peoples money to, so ultimately paying themselves.

When "they" tell you how much something you need costs, "they" include all those things you don't need, like the bonuses and personal expence accounts of those getting rich and fat off your sickness.

When I worked as a health care supporter, coming up with lots of ideas for directing budgets to better serve the sick, I had the pleasure of knocking back a job with lots of ritzy perks and a multi-million dollar budget (to be spent under government 'guidelines', not mine), because I'd rather be free to correct the 'lies' of people like ....



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I really believe they're following the computer-chip maker model of business -- release new innovations in stages to maximize the profit-demand curve.

Give me a convincing argument that this isn't the case with Big Pharma and medicine.

Well.....for a start the research breakthrough you linked through wasn't from a pharmaceutical company but a university. There also isn't a patent attached to this finding, so anyone can read the research and then start developing a product or further research based on it.

The most likely thing to happen is that pharmaceutical companies will look at making patentable products based upon these findings. Maybe, just maybe, in 5 years time we will see some new drug therapies based upon this research. It will certainly not be a "cure" but just an addition to the clinicians arsenal of drugs they use to fight HIV.

On your more general point about pharmaceutical companies withholding findings: they would in fact patent any new product as soon as possible. Otherwise they may get beaten to it by a competitor and risk wasting millions, or even hundreds of millions, of dollars.

However...the pharm companies have in the past been guilty of patenting a treatment, to block competitors from releasing anything similar, and then sitting on it while they "milk" their current product for the next few years.

Pharmaceutical companies are no more or less evil than any other corporations. They purely want to maximise they profit to their shareholders. In fact they have a legal obligation to do so. They are developing 14 different erectile dysfunction drugs while not developing any ones for malaria because that's where the money is. Rich men in the west will pay a fortune to get it up more often, but dying Africans haven't got any cash to pay for anti-malaria treatments. It exactly the same as why Lexus are developing luxury cars instead of cheap farm machinery for 3rd world farmers. It's where the cash is.

To change this we either need to make some fundamental changes to the way capatilism works, or get publically funded pharmaceutical companies set up that would share their drugs freely with the world. Just blaming "Big Pharm" gets us nowhere.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join