3 ms·

What's with all the downvotes? HN has gotten ridiculously polarized in the last few years.

Someone1234 7y ago
It is an unfounded conspiracy theory that has nothing really to do with this topic. It also shows a great deal of ignorance around how HIV invades the body (and why it is so difficult to completely eradicate e.g. [0]). I didn't downvote it, but it isn't exactly hard to see why some might. It is less that HN is "ridiculously polarized" and more that the signal:noise on that specific comment is exceptionally low. [0] https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/lab-report/cells-stand-way-of-curing-hiv https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/lab-report/cells-stand-way-of...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Angostura 7y ago
No, it's just that the difficulties surrounding the development of an HIV vaccine are well established. Unwarranted suggestions of a global conspiracy suppressing The Truth tend to get downvoted as daft. "Could it be because charging people $1000++ a month for drugs, for the rest of their life, is a better business model?" Or could it be that the poster hadn't bothered to look at the reasons. https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/development-hiv-vaccines https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/developme... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2572109/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2572109/
- ravenstine 7y ago
  I get what you're saying. I just think it's hyperbolic to downvote someone making that kind of speculation. It seems as if you're reading a lot into that one sentence. I didn't see anything about a "global conspiracy"; he's just asking if the economics around HIV drugs are discouraging research into an HIV vaccine which, even if it's not correct, isn't totally outrageous or unrelated to the thread. Ebola, in contrast to HIV, doesn't have the same economic pressure that could dissuade drug companies from developing a vaccine. As far as I'm aware, there's no expensive drug that suppresses Ebola symptoms. A better thing for people to do would have been to just reply with the kind of information that you provided.
  - warent 7y ago
    It's a nice attempt to spin this as an economics argument but that's definitely not what this is. There's not even any evidence to reinforce their hypothesis. I could just as well say something like "it's interesting that the WTC collapsed the way it did in 9/11. Could it be because if it toppled over then the damage would have been too catastrophic? I'm just making an economics argument!"
    - ravenstine 7y ago
      > It's a nice attempt to spin this as an economics argument Stop right there. I'm not attempting to "spin" anything.
  - Angostura 7y ago
    It requires all drug companies to have at least an internal conspiracy to suppress the results if HIV vaccine research - we know that they are investing plenty of money into the research from publicly available figures, so the implication is that they will be either suppressing the results or tampering with research to make it fail. > As far as I'm aware, there's no expensive drug that suppresses Ebola symptoms. "In the light of this I find it very surprising that drug companies haven't developed a drug that allows them to charge people $1000++ a month for drugs, for the rest of their life, isn't that a better business model? How on earth did the companies allow this vaccine research to escape?!!
    - ravenstine 7y ago
      Dude, what's with the snark? Can't we have a civilized discussion? You had a point there, but I'm not really inclined to engage with you after the last thing you said.
  - bsanr2 7y ago
    I think the economic lens is the way to go. It clearly applies to ebola itself. How come there wasn't a vaccine before now? Because it's a virus endemic to a poor continent that kills its host quickly. And the sudden effort over the past few years? Spurred by Western medicine's realization of the grave potential of an ebola pandemic, because of experience with the epidemics of the past few years. I find it hard to believe that we couldn't moonshot an HIV/AIDS vaccine or cure, but it's also clear that the incentive isn't there. That doesn't take a conspiracy, just the people who could fund an organize a concerted, focused global effort simply not caring enough about a disease that is still stigmatized by its infection rate among "gays, druggies, and blacks" (particularly when they can rent-seek on bodies that have historically been commodified anyway).
- lebuffon 7y ago
  Point taken. Dr Barouch's work indicates that HIV is particularly challenging. I had not kept up. I like the idea of using DNA that will generate HIV antigens versus the classic approach. I may have to recant in light of this evidence. Thank you for the links.
refurb 7y ago
It's being downvoted because it's such an incredibly ignorant statement that is doing nothing but perpetrating conspiracy theories. If the OP had done even a little bit of research, they would have quickly realized that AIDS has unique properties that makes making a vaccine incredibly complicated despite a ton of effort that has gone into it so far.
- natechols 7y ago
  In my experience the people who make claims like the OP's almost invariably know nothing about either biology, drug development, or big pharma. But the amount of disinformation circling the whole drug price debate has always been epic.
  - lebuffon 7y ago
    No conspiracy required. Run the numbers on all HIV patients requiring perpetual treatment versus a vaccine slowly eliminating the virus from the population over 5,10 and 20 years. Vaccines are not a great business model compared to the latter. Analogous to the dearth of Antibiotic research currently. Other drugs like statins for example are much more profitable due to perpetual use requirement. Where would you invest the companies resources if you were running the show? And make no mistake. The resources are finite when you are charged with growing multi tens of billions of annual revenue. Miss by 5% and your head rolls and your stock options are upside down. So place your bets wisely.
    - refurb 7y ago
      You do realize that vaccines can be incredibly profitable in some cases? Pfizer’s Prenvar sold $5.8B in 2017. That easily exceeds many chronic treatments. And I would argue that an AIDS vaccine, like Gilead’s cure for HCV, could be priced quite aggressively. A chronic treatment does not suggest a continued stream of revenue as competitors often enter the market with 2nd generation products.
      - lebuffon 7y ago

It is an unfounded conspiracy theory that has nothing really to do with this topic. It also shows a great deal of ignorance around how HIV invades the body (and why it is so difficult to completely eradicate e.g. [0]). I didn't downvote it, but it isn't exactly hard to see why some might. It is less that HN is "ridiculously polarized" and more that the signal:noise on that specific comment is exceptionally low. [0] https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/lab-report/cells-stand-way-of-curing-hiv https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/lab-report/cells-stand-way-of...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Angostura 7y ago

No, it's just that the difficulties surrounding the development of an HIV vaccine are well established. Unwarranted suggestions of a global conspiracy suppressing The Truth tend to get downvoted as daft. "Could it be because charging people $1000++ a month for drugs, for the rest of their life, is a better business model?" Or could it be that the poster hadn't bothered to look at the reasons. https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/development-hiv-vaccines https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/developme... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2572109/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2572109/

ravenstine 7y ago
I get what you're saying. I just think it's hyperbolic to downvote someone making that kind of speculation. It seems as if you're reading a lot into that one sentence. I didn't see anything about a "global conspiracy"; he's just asking if the economics around HIV drugs are discouraging research into an HIV vaccine which, even if it's not correct, isn't totally outrageous or unrelated to the thread. Ebola, in contrast to HIV, doesn't have the same economic pressure that could dissuade drug companies from developing a vaccine. As far as I'm aware, there's no expensive drug that suppresses Ebola symptoms. A better thing for people to do would have been to just reply with the kind of information that you provided.
- warent 7y ago
  It's a nice attempt to spin this as an economics argument but that's definitely not what this is. There's not even any evidence to reinforce their hypothesis. I could just as well say something like "it's interesting that the WTC collapsed the way it did in 9/11. Could it be because if it toppled over then the damage would have been too catastrophic? I'm just making an economics argument!"
  - ravenstine 7y ago
    > It's a nice attempt to spin this as an economics argument Stop right there. I'm not attempting to "spin" anything.
- Angostura 7y ago
  It requires all drug companies to have at least an internal conspiracy to suppress the results if HIV vaccine research - we know that they are investing plenty of money into the research from publicly available figures, so the implication is that they will be either suppressing the results or tampering with research to make it fail. > As far as I'm aware, there's no expensive drug that suppresses Ebola symptoms. "In the light of this I find it very surprising that drug companies haven't developed a drug that allows them to charge people $1000++ a month for drugs, for the rest of their life, isn't that a better business model? How on earth did the companies allow this vaccine research to escape?!!
  - ravenstine 7y ago
    Dude, what's with the snark? Can't we have a civilized discussion? You had a point there, but I'm not really inclined to engage with you after the last thing you said.
- bsanr2 7y ago
  I think the economic lens is the way to go. It clearly applies to ebola itself. How come there wasn't a vaccine before now? Because it's a virus endemic to a poor continent that kills its host quickly. And the sudden effort over the past few years? Spurred by Western medicine's realization of the grave potential of an ebola pandemic, because of experience with the epidemics of the past few years. I find it hard to believe that we couldn't moonshot an HIV/AIDS vaccine or cure, but it's also clear that the incentive isn't there. That doesn't take a conspiracy, just the people who could fund an organize a concerted, focused global effort simply not caring enough about a disease that is still stigmatized by its infection rate among "gays, druggies, and blacks" (particularly when they can rent-seek on bodies that have historically been commodified anyway).
lebuffon 7y ago
Point taken. Dr Barouch's work indicates that HIV is particularly challenging. I had not kept up. I like the idea of using DNA that will generate HIV antigens versus the classic approach. I may have to recant in light of this evidence. Thank you for the links.

refurb 7y ago

It's being downvoted because it's such an incredibly ignorant statement that is doing nothing but perpetrating conspiracy theories. If the OP had done even a little bit of research, they would have quickly realized that AIDS has unique properties that makes making a vaccine incredibly complicated despite a ton of effort that has gone into it so far.

natechols 7y ago
In my experience the people who make claims like the OP's almost invariably know nothing about either biology, drug development, or big pharma. But the amount of disinformation circling the whole drug price debate has always been epic.
- lebuffon 7y ago
  No conspiracy required. Run the numbers on all HIV patients requiring perpetual treatment versus a vaccine slowly eliminating the virus from the population over 5,10 and 20 years. Vaccines are not a great business model compared to the latter. Analogous to the dearth of Antibiotic research currently. Other drugs like statins for example are much more profitable due to perpetual use requirement. Where would you invest the companies resources if you were running the show? And make no mistake. The resources are finite when you are charged with growing multi tens of billions of annual revenue. Miss by 5% and your head rolls and your stock options are upside down. So place your bets wisely.
  - refurb 7y ago
    You do realize that vaccines can be incredibly profitable in some cases? Pfizer’s Prenvar sold $5.8B in 2017. That easily exceeds many chronic treatments. And I would argue that an AIDS vaccine, like Gilead’s cure for HCV, could be priced quite aggressively. A chronic treatment does not suggest a continued stream of revenue as competitors often enter the market with 2nd generation products.
    - lebuffon 7y ago