This seems to imply that large drug companies are interested in squashing a cure for AIDS. The truth is they don’t give a damn one way or the other about it. Why? Because, though it is a horrible disease, it really isn’t widespread enough for the drug companies to make big money on it. Research is being done, but most of it is government funded. Companies may do some private research, but it is more of a PR deal. The drug companies would rather have their researchers looking for the magic pill that will melt off fat without anal leakage, the new viagra that will work better and last longer, the next pain killer to replace Ibuprofen, because any of these would be huge moneymakers.
“You can be smart or pleasant. For years I was smart.
I recommend pleasant.”
Elwood P. Dowd
Any doc with credentials to practice at a major hospital can request institutional (NOT FDA) approval to conduct a therapeutic trial. If they are not affiliated with a major hospital (with an Institutional Review Board=IRB), they will likely have to partner up with someone who is.
FDA approval is required only to market a new medication, and approval for Phase II & III trials (which are required before an application for marketing can be submitted) often requires some work, either in animals, or in small scale, local therapeutic trials with humans before being considered.
I think the stopper here is that Dr. Davis wants exclusive rights to market his miracle elixir, but does not have the research background/experience required by the FDA, and/or credentials at a major medical center authorized to conduct clinical research.
If, in fact, FDA approval for a Phase II trial had been obtained, the FDA was absolutely right to stop any pending trial if tight control over the medication could not be guaranteed. Institutions lose their authority to oversee research if trial meds are not 100% accounted for.
Given the effectiveness of current drugs, there is no way any unproven treatment would be offered in lieu of current meds. It is absolutely unethical to withhold effective treatment in order to test unproven treatments. No IRB would ever, ever, ever approve such a study.
In cases in which a patient could not tolerate any standard treatment, or in whom the HIV had developed resistance to standard treatment, an unproven treatment MIGHT be made available on a compassionate-use basis.
Nothing in the link suggested such an exceptional circumstance existed.
Sue from El Paso
Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.
Thanks for the information. I had hoped that either you or JillGat would chime in with a professional opinion.
BTW, while searching the internet for more information, I used the search term “goat serum” and got some kind of medical reference to goat serum having something to do with human immune deficiency…I really didn’t fully understand what I was reading though…can you enlighten?
Krispy Original – voted SDMB’s 19th most popular poster (1999)
[[Because, though it is a horrible disease, it really isn’t widespread enough for the drug companies to make big money on it. Research is being done, but most of it is government funded. Companies may do some private research, but it is more of a PR deal.]]
Excuse me? Where are you getting this, or is it just a gut feeling? You don’t think there would be major bucks and status for whoever comes up with a cure? You don’t think it’s a widespread pandemic? You don’t think there are already huge amounts of money being poured into research right now? I could go on…
Jill
There is some truth to it. AIDS is widespread in Africa and less so in America. In the recent Rep. debates, when asked about financial help for the African epidemic, all responses were tempered with Jeramiads about “behavior” and “lifestyle” - less than compassionate. Hatch was a little better and talked about pediatric AIDS, a “safe” group to feel compassion for.
Many PWAs are uninsured - the money is in VIAGRA and other treatments geared towards insured Americans. It is unfortunate. We need a federal initiative for drug development geared towards eliminating diseases, bases not on the insurance $s that might come in down the pipe but increased life spans for all - which would (if we have to pander to the economy) save lost wages and hospice monies over the long run.
No. A potential cure may be scuttled by the process. Because the creator of the web page thinks it is an anti-African American conspiracy, says nothing about:
the effacacy of the drug
the red tape involved - and the lack of a large drug company PAC to clear it out of the way.
Example - VIAGRA was created, approved and marketed by the time the man who had pioneered the basic science (o2 effect on blood) received a Nobel Prize.
THEN, people started dropping dead of drug interactions, exertion etc. I looks at a glance that this is a drug that got alot of male administrators hot to approve, add an effective PAC from Pfizer and voila it’s on the shelf long before it needs to be. Conspiracy - smoke filled room? No way. You don’t need a conspiracy when every one is in agreement on the surface.
And it is clear that the number of PWA’s in Congress being (supposedly) 0, there may be a lack of WILL in the area of AIDS drugs.
Significant is that the doctor does not seem to be working for a drug company. Drug companies have been uninterested in testing compands that are un-patentable. This list of possible compounds is vast. Conspiracy? NO. It’s just not in their mission statement - make money.