Researchers: Toddler cured of HIV

[joseephuss]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/03/health/hiv-toddler-cured/index.html

Researchers: Toddler cured of HIV

(CNN) -- It's a potential game changer in the fight against HIV, and doctors say it happened almost by accident.

A baby with the virus that causes AIDS was given high doses of three antiretroviral drugs within 30 hours of her birth. Doctors knew the mother was HIV positive and administered the drugs in hopes of controlling the virus.

Two years later, there is no evidence of HIV in the child's blood.

The Mississippi girl is the first child to be "functionally cured" of HIV, researchers announced Sunday. They said they believe early intervention with the antiretroviral drugs was key to the outcome.

A "functional cure" is when the presence of the virus is so small, lifelong treatment is not necessary and standard clinical tests cannot detect the virus in the blood.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Step one: Cure HIV
Step two: Price cure exorbitantly high
Step three: Profit

 

[muck4doo]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/03/health/hiv-toddler-cured/index.html

Researchers: Toddler cured of HIV

(CNN) -- It's a potential game changer in the fight against HIV, and doctors say it happened almost by accident.

A baby with the virus that causes AIDS was given high doses of three antiretroviral drugs within 30 hours of her birth. Doctors knew the mother was HIV positive and administered the drugs in hopes of controlling the virus.

Two years later, there is no evidence of HIV in the child's blood.

The Mississippi girl is the first child to be "functionally cured" of HIV, researchers announced Sunday. They said they believe early intervention with the antiretroviral drugs was key to the outcome.

A "functional cure" is when the presence of the virus is so small, lifelong treatment is not necessary and standard clinical tests cannot detect the virus in the blood.

So, in other words, they think that might have solved it. We should give all babies those drugs.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Step one: Cure HIV
Step two: Price cure exorbitantly high
Step three: Profit

*Shakes head

Shameful

So, in other words, they think that might have solved it. We should give all babies those drugs.

Wow..just freaking wow.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Sounds like the first big step in what will hopefully lead to them finding a cure for this.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Sounds like the first big step in what will hopefully lead to them finding a cure for this.

Heck yes! I've been wanting a good reason to throw away my prophylactics.:laugh2:

 

[Hoofbite]

So, in other words, they think that might have solved it. We should give all babies those drugs.

I don't think you understand.

 

[jobberone]

Step one: Cure HIV
Step two: Price cure exorbitantly high
Step three: Profit

And right now due to regulations and lawsuits the development of new drugs has been significantly slowed here. And will probably stay that way for the foreseeable future.

We had bubonic plague and no cure. We had syphilis. We had mumps, measles, smallpox, varicella etc in the New World. We had influenza in 1918. We had polio and now HIV. What are the costs to develop cures for those vs the savings in preventing it. Polio alone looked to create an unmanageable burden at one time caring for the sick and invalid. Not to mention saving lives and making life more abundant. Malaria remains with HIV. And now organic brain syndromes.

If those companies can't develop drugs and we can't pay for basic research the cost to mankind is incalculable. The need to make money to keep stockholders happy as well as fund continuing work on new drugs. Most drugs in development are dry holes.

 

[kristie]

Sounds like the first big step in what will hopefully lead to them finding a cure for this.

i truly hope so.

 

[CliffnDallas]

Step one: Cure HIV
Step two: Price cure exorbitantly high
Step three: Profit

Exactly.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I don't think you understand.

Obviously not.

 

[muck4doo]

Obviously not.

Oh, I understand, and this is great news for the kid. However, it doesn't look like they are absolutely sure that's what cured it.

 

[Denim Chicken]

If those companies can't develop drugs and we can't pay for basic research the cost to mankind is incalculable. The need to make money to keep stockholders happy as well as fund continuing work on new drugs. Most drugs in development are dry holes.

Exactly, most who have HIV are in poverty and can't afford treatment which makes researching and curing the disease less profitable. However, treating the disease (not curing) remains a cash cow.

 

[jobberone]

Exactly, most who have HIV are in poverty and can't afford treatment which makes researching and curing the disease less profitable. However, treating the disease (not curing) remains a cash cow.

You missed the point. They can't develop new medicines without a boatload of capital as the very vast majority of chemicals don't work well or are toxic yada. And even if they make it to trials it takes years to get them to the public and many don't even make it out of trials anyway.

So without money you don't get the new drugs to cure diseases. Get it??

In Africa the first thing I learned was you don't do anything completely for free even if your services are free to the hospital and patient. The hospital charges something the patient/family can afford. Or you'll get overwhelmed and many take the meds you give them and sell them. So there is an order to things.

NOTHING is free.

And I edited out the unacceptable part of your post.

 

[Doomsday101]

And right now due to regulations and lawsuits the development of new drugs has been significantly slowed here. And will probably stay that way for the foreseeable future.

We had bubonic plague and no cure. We had syphilis. We had mumps, measles, smallpox, varicella etc in the New World. We had influenza in 1918. We had polio and now HIV. What are the costs to develop cures for those vs the savings in preventing it. Polio alone looked to create an unmanageable burden at one time caring for the sick and invalid. Not to mention saving lives and making life more abundant. Malaria remains with HIV. And now organic brain syndromes.

If those companies can't develop drugs and we can't pay for basic research the cost to mankind is incalculable. The need to make money to keep stockholders happy as well as fund continuing work on new drugs. Most drugs in development are dry holes.

Yep. I know for some now days the thought of profit is somehow looked at as bad but without profit there is no investment for more research and newer drugs to help treat and or cure various illnesses.

I have RA and thankful that through research and new medications that my illness can be controlled many others were not as lucky as the medications where not available when they were diagnosed with RA.

As for as the pharmaceutical company who manufacture Orencia, Bristol-Myers I can't complain since they help me in being able to pay for the treatments that I need once a month. Without their patient assistant program I could not afford the treatment

 

[Denim Chicken]

You missed the point. They can't develop new medicines without a boatload of capital as the very vast majority of chemicals don't work well or are toxic yada. And even if they make it to trials it takes years to get them to the public and many don't even make it out of trials anyway.

So without money you don't get the new drugs to cure diseases. Get it??

In Africa the first thing I learned was you don't do anything completely for free even if your services are free to the hospital and patient. The hospital charges something the patient/family can afford. Or you'll get overwhelmed and many take the meds you give them and sell them. So there is an order to things.

NOTHING is free.

And I edited out the unacceptable part of your post.

No, I understand. It's a product of putting for-profit corporations in charge of R&D and distribution.

 

[Doomsday101]

Exactly, most who have HIV are in poverty and can't afford treatment which makes researching and curing the disease less profitable. However, treating the disease (not curing) remains a cash cow.

and it is not just about profit. Yes profit is important but to think that they have no desire to cure it ridicules.

 

[Denim Chicken]

and it is not just about profit. Yes profit is important but to think that they have no desire to cure it ridicules.

No, what is ridiculous if believing that that the large pharma companies care about anything other than the bottom line.

 

[Doomsday101]

No, what is ridiculous if believing that that the large pharma companies care about anything other than the bottom line.

Yes they care about the bottom line they also have professional who believe in what they are doing in trying to find cures for various illness. Sorry this jaded view that they don't give a damn is just not true. You seem to think making profits are bad? If they make no profit they will not stay in business very long that is how life works no profit, no pay, no business. That is reality but to act as if they don't care BS

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Step one: Cure HIV
Step two: Price cure exorbitantly high
Step three: Profit

step 4 - altruists step in and declare this medicine is a right. ignoring the years of research, the millions spent and all the long hours away from family and friends working on a lucrative cure.