Perhaps the government should pick up the tab on this one if it proves to be as effective as it appears to be.Yes, I would pay a bit extra in my taxes if it made HIV treatable/preventable.
@dpknc84:As soon as the medication is shown to be clinically better than the placebo *at a statistically significant level*, participants are offered the opportunity to switch from placebo to treatment. Statistical significance much be reached; otherwise, it is not possible to tell if apparently better results are actually a fluke or if they are real.An example of treatment that looked good but turned out to be a fluke is estrogen for coronary heart disease. Small trials showed it to be clinically superior to placebo, but never at a statistically significant level. Finally, a large trial failed to demonstrate that the treatment was better than placebo.
Yes lets drop everything and search for a cure, too bad anyone who has it right now we are too busy looking for a cure rather then a way to stall the disease. It is not like researching ways to slow the disease down ever lead to any important information or understanding of the disease that could possibly lead to a cure. In fact lets stop producing insulin as well and just cure diabetes. No one talk about diabetes or HIV anymore till it is cured.
Actually, I was waiting for someone to catch that. Heh. I wrote that at like 5 am with no sleep and I accidentally reversed the numbers. The percent is correct but the actual spending for the year of 2006 was 2.4 trillion not 4.2. Yours represents their potential budget but not their actual spending.
FTA: 'Each of three groups were given different doses of raltegravir, ranging from 200 to 600 mg, and the fourth group received a placebo. All four also took a basic "background treatment".'This means that everyone in the study, even the placebo group, still received some standard drug treatment for their HIV infection. I am willing to bet that the Lancet article even details what that treatment is. This randomized control trial (RCT) is to see what additional benefit the integrase inhibitor can add.
The first pill is always going to cost a crap ton of money, but the following pills are going to cost them one dollar at best , now take in count the epidemic we have on our hands , the dark continent alone, has millions in each country dieing and suffering from this. If were going to raise the price to make up the cost of research we putting our feet in our mouths, cause guess what most of the people who are suffering wont be able to pay for, what i am saying is we need to think of this like a vaccine , make up the cost in the donations that we have , and will get , plus government(s) aid. This is for good of the world, not some one pocket
acetracerApr 15, 2007
Seriously, we get this story about once a week. The same with cancer, which we've apparently been close to curing for over 50 years.
1dogApr 15, 2007
I would like to be optimistic about this, but they haven't even cured the common cold yet.
stuntaneousApr 15, 2007
for further reading on current HIV news, <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/world_news/Banning_HIV_positive_migrants_gets_Aussie_PM_in_hot_water">http://digg.com/world_news/Banning_HIV_positive_migrants_gets_Aussie_PM_in_hot_water</a>
konrad9Apr 15, 2007
Perhaps the government should pick up the tab on this one if it proves to be as effective as it appears to be.Yes, I would pay a bit extra in my taxes if it made HIV treatable/preventable.
Closed AccountApr 15, 2007
@dpknc84:As soon as the medication is shown to be clinically better than the placebo *at a statistically significant level*, participants are offered the opportunity to switch from placebo to treatment. Statistical significance much be reached; otherwise, it is not possible to tell if apparently better results are actually a fluke or if they are real.An example of treatment that looked good but turned out to be a fluke is estrogen for coronary heart disease. Small trials showed it to be clinically superior to placebo, but never at a statistically significant level. Finally, a large trial failed to demonstrate that the treatment was better than placebo.
mage1129Apr 15, 2007
Yes lets drop everything and search for a cure, too bad anyone who has it right now we are too busy looking for a cure rather then a way to stall the disease. It is not like researching ways to slow the disease down ever lead to any important information or understanding of the disease that could possibly lead to a cure. In fact lets stop producing insulin as well and just cure diabetes. No one talk about diabetes or HIV anymore till it is cured.
Closed AccountApr 15, 2007
Because your numbers for the budget are incorrect:<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_budget_%28United_States%29">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_budget_%28United_States%29</a>The 2006 budget was "only" 2.6 trillion. Where exactly did you come up with 4.2? It wasn't anywhere in your link.
ckmaverickApr 16, 2007
Actually, I was waiting for someone to catch that. Heh. I wrote that at like 5 am with no sleep and I accidentally reversed the numbers. The percent is correct but the actual spending for the year of 2006 was 2.4 trillion not 4.2. Yours represents their potential budget but not their actual spending.
lordzoddApr 16, 2007
FTA: 'Each of three groups were given different doses of raltegravir, ranging from 200 to 600 mg, and the fourth group received a placebo. All four also took a basic "background treatment".'This means that everyone in the study, even the placebo group, still received some standard drug treatment for their HIV infection. I am willing to bet that the Lancet article even details what that treatment is. This randomized control trial (RCT) is to see what additional benefit the integrase inhibitor can add.
40bsloveApr 16, 2007
The first pill is always going to cost a crap ton of money, but the following pills are going to cost them one dollar at best , now take in count the epidemic we have on our hands , the dark continent alone, has millions in each country dieing and suffering from this. If were going to raise the price to make up the cost of research we putting our feet in our mouths, cause guess what most of the people who are suffering wont be able to pay for, what i am saying is we need to think of this like a vaccine , make up the cost in the donations that we have , and will get , plus government(s) aid. This is for good of the world, not some one pocket