**** you HIV! We win!

well until there is sure fire protection for computer viruses, my pixels are still off limits.

Well, In either case that debt was repayed because more americans died defending France than French defending america. WWII.. They would be cursing us in german right now if we didnt go in.

For one thing, Viagra was created long before this, so natrually it would have been passed through first.... for another, what many people don't realize is that Viagra making you 'harder than chinese algebra' to quote Robin Williams is a side effect. Viagra was originally developed as a hypertension drug. Its use as an impotence drug came after someone noticed the side effect of increased blood flow that it causes.

I've heard the statement a number of times as an example of 'messed up priorities....' but it doesn't hold up. Viagra wasn't originally created as an 'aphrodisiac...' it just happened to work as one. The original intent was much more important.

This would be similar in concept to a Parkinson's disease treatment that they've found eliminates the reflexive period for some men. For those of you who DON'T remember your high school biology... you know that period of time after an orgasm that you just CAN'T do anything in? The one women pretty much don't have, which means they can cum like a freight train six, seven times in a row, while you only get once? The treatment eliminates that. They're doing studies to see if they can improve on that effect.

Anywho...

This HIV treatment is intriguing, because it could very well lead to similar things for other diseases, and perhaps science's first actual CURE of any virus (as medical science has never successfully cured any virus... not even the common cold).

British Then: Big lines of men in red and white on an open battle field.

Americans Now: Big installations of expensive hardware with lots of news coverage.

Difference: Originally both sides had roughly the same tech. Wooden Ships, Cannons, muskets/riffles. Couple other key differences also, but I'm in to tech, what can I say .

Viagra was passed through very quickly after minimal research and some number jockying with regards to its effect. Though it was originally created for hypertension, I believe, the FDA had to approve it for an alternate use. The FDA does not just approve compounds. They also must approve any alternative use of the compound and any supplemental labeling. What we do know is that there is a definate correlation between the acceptance of a drug and the size of the company, the political pressure the company creates via lobbists and contributions and the number of applications presented by the company regardless of the quality of the R&D findings.

The fact remains that designer drugs such as viagra and some of the "soft" psychological drugs (drugs prescribed for people who feel "down" or "lack energy" not for clincally diagnosed depression or anxiety) are far more profitable for the firms than drugs which will only be sold to a small percentage of society and/or used during a short time frame. These drugs are marketable to a much larger demographic seeing as how erectile dysfunction and moderate depresion are subjective terms (Pfizer cited that nealy 38% of men experience some erectile dysfunction and would benefit from the use of Viagra). Another trend that has been noted is that once an initial viable drug is accepted for marketing by the FDA, subsequent drugs are passed with far less frequency and speed. AZT for instance was accepted very quickly yet several subsequent drugs with equal or greater effect were bogged in the system and not released for years. This is partly due to a lessening of political pressures on the FDA from organized groups lobbying for the drugs to be passed. It is also due to pressures from firms with vested interest who want a window of exclusivity.

That said, sorry for my flip viagra comment but I do find some of the methods used by the FDA and drug firms a bit disconcerting. The FDA relies to heavily upon monies from corporate sponsors and has a tendency to show bias to those companies who are heavily embedded in the political sphere. Drugs such as Vioxx should have gone through far more rigorous trials while cancer treatments and other drugs to aid the dying are held in flux for long periods of time awaiting further R&D reports. Pain killers are marketable to a much larger demographic than cancer treatments. Erectile dysfunction makes for a much better commercial than an AIDS treatment. If this were truely a matter of serving the sick through appropriate and safe medical care, the drug firms would rely upon the physicians discretion instead of expensive ad campaigns targeting potential customers for "soft" pharmaceuticals and the FDA would focus its efforts more heavily on life saving treatments instead of penis enhancing pills, happy tonics, pain killers and cough syrup.

Um, a different take on the pharmaceutical industry, admittedly from one who has worked in it, me. Mostly in Finance but a brief stint in Marketing, so full disclosure there.

The labeling issue is mostly correct. A drug will usually start off with an approval for one indication (or a tight cluster of indications) then its use may broaden. Say a drug is approved for Disease A. If preliminary studies, or even just physician intuition suggest that this drug may work for Disease B (related to Disease A or not), a physician may prescribe the drug. Now private insurance or medicare may not cover the cost, but it can be prescribed. No matter how much it is used though, a company can not legally advertise or promote the drug for Disease B until the FDA approves a label change. These label changes are a bit easier since the drug already has a lot more safety data behind it, but it's not a slam dunk. Now this off-label use is a bit of a pet peeve of the FDA's. Banning off-label use isn't in the cards, but the FDA has felt that sometimes companies are all too willing to keep use of a drug off-label and not clear all the additional regulatory hurdles, and the FDA has a point here. For large market drugs this is less of an issue, but you will see this a lot more in acute diseases that are related to each other, cancer being a prime one.

As for the targets of drug discovery, yes there is an economic bias towards larger chronic conditions. The upside of large population chronic diseases is much bigger revenue potential, but it also costs a lot more to get these drugs approved, the trials are MUCH bigger and much more costly. Big pharma may be a bit overweighted still to large market drugs and me-too drugs (me-too drugs do introduce price competition and are easier to get approved once a new class of drugs has broken new ground, this isn't necessarily a bad thing). But then there is a rather diverse group of biotech companies as well, some working for the big indications, others working for the much smaller ones, and the large majority of them get funding from big pharma at some point.

The idea of follow-on drugs being harder to get approved (your AZT example) doesn't seem to gel with the standard me-too drug phenomenon. I think the latter is over-stated as a negative, but it does show in larger indications. For smaller indications there is less desire to spend a ton of money when a competitor is already in the market. One's evaluation of this depends on one's approach to private medicine and monopoly rights in general, and a little broad to get into here.

Now the FDA has its faults, and while I wholeheartedly agree with some of the seeming heartless actions of the drug industry, there are cases where they need to moderate their stance or just give it up (some of their anti-generic ploys really piss me off).

Lit, though I understand your perspective, there is very little research on the inner-workings of the FDA. I found a bit of documentation at havard.edu. But other than that, few question the FDA so far as to research the legitimacy and/or efficacy of this bureaucratic appendage. Personally, I am interested in more research regarding the hypothetical effects of a privatized regulatory clearinghouse of sorts for pharmaceutical companies. Though privatization does not mean that the organization will be immune to the ravages of politics and money, they will be held accountable by transparency and share holders. One cannot expect admittance of culpability from a branch of the governmental bureaucracy. I do have doubts regarding the competence of privatized organizations, such as this, and thier ability to remain unbiased and not be swayed by the pay-offs, but I have as many doubts about the current system.

Yes, the FDA has to approve 'off label' uses for drugs.... (although I THINK doctors can perscribe drugs for off label use without approval.... the drug just can't be marketed for off label use without approval.)

Ok... I found the drug you're talking about.... but YIKES.... an ergot derivitave?

As long as it's tested and found to be safe, I'm there..... but I'm quite leery of anything to do with ergot.

mmm... ergot derivatives.

dood that is the same stuff that magic johnson used.Iif i remember correctly is that you have to continuosly use these pills. If you dont use them anymore the HIV comes back. Its a very costly measure and wouldnt think it would hit the states for quite some time.

No... this is new. As far as I know, Magic Johnson is on the AZT cocktail.