3 ms·

No, it's just that the difficulties surrounding the development of an HIV vaccine are well established. Unwarranted suggestions of a global conspiracy suppressi

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.

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.