Comments on: Glaxo, Pfizer create new HIV drug company

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:05:20 +0000

A company focusing exlusively on HIV is a great idea. That way profits from HIV meds fund HIV research and can’t be siphoned off to fund other diseases or used as political fodder for internal company battles. Also, the new company can more accurately predict how many reaserch dollars the drug profits will generate years down the road.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:13:33 +0000

I’m disgusted by the term treatment. Why aren’t these companies looking into cures? You’re right budbud, there’s no market in cures. I just took a look at Pfizer’s financial statement for 2008, did you know they spent almost as much on advertising as they did on research and development? From what I’m seeing it looks like they spent $413 million on advertising and $433 million on research. They should devote that money to researching CURES! DISGUSTING!!! The health, well-being and ultimately the lives of our moms and dads, brothers and sisters, friends and loved ones should not be a for-profit venture. We need better people running this world. We need leaders. It’s time we got motivated America! Let’s take back our country.

By: Budbud

Budbud — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:49:18 +0000

Did anyone notice that the companies said they want to work on HIV “treatments”?

So sad how a “Cure” or preventative vaccine is not the goal. I suppose lifetime treatment of a chronic disease is much more profitable. I was particularly creeped out by them refering to increasing infection rates as “a growing market”. It’s like they’re cheering it on, seeing infected people as nothing more than customers.

I don’t think the government should grant these private companies anymore research dollars unless they can PROVE that they are working on CURES and VACCINES and not just “treatments” and that goes for everything, NOT just HIV!

We give these companies BILLIONS of tax dollars and they turn around and GOUGE us for what OUR TAX MONEY has helped to develop.

Believe me. Any such merger is NOT motivated by any noble interest in helping those with HIV. It has everything to do with MONEY. When is the last time a merger actually benefitted the consumer?

By: LOrion

LOrion — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:50:42 +0000

I know, I know, BIG PHARMA is bad… and I am a retired physician. But I am on this page because I trained admitting… and losing AIDS patients for years before the medicines.
Anything to get better ones out there to more people!
Astonishing how sensible it seems, now they will probably have anti-trust suits thrown against them, because after all what is better than good old American Competition?
Good health, that is what is better.

By: TigerTzu

TigerTzu — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:40:37 +0000

There is no profit in a cure, only continued treatment brings in the bling.

By: Jordan Luke

Jordan Luke — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:09:21 +0000

People can’t afford these drugs and this move probably won’t help too much…