New HIV research for cure

[tallslenderguy]

"CAR T-cell therapy currently in UC Davis Health clinical trial study as potential cure for HIV

In efforts to search for an alternative option to life-long treatment, UC Davis Health has commenced a study testing the efficacy of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell Therapy (CAR T-cell Therapy) and its potential as a cure for HIV. CAR T-cell therapy involves the removal of a patient’s immune system’s T-cells and genetically modifying them to recognize and attack HIV-afflicted cells in the host.  

Dr. Mehrdad Abedi, a professor of internal medicine, hematology and oncology at UC Davis Health and the principal investigator of the study, further explained the process in administering CAR T-cell therapy to a patient. 

“For this study, we will educate the cells by inserting a gene to target cells that have been infected by the HIV virus,” Abedi said. “The idea is these modified cells will attach to the HIV-infected cells and destroy the cells that are infected while also stopping the infected cells’ ability to replicate.” "

can read the whole article here: [think before following links] https://theaggie.org/2022/04/18/car-t-cell-therapy-currently-in-uc-davis-health-clinical-trial-study-as-potential-cure-for-hiv/

[mort]

I wouldn't pay to much attention to the cure talk it's all BS.

 

Cures do not make $$$ what they are really doing is looking for treatments or prevention which wont be one dose but a long term making it fairly cost effective so they can sell it for a fair price but also make a nice amount when you take them for decades.

 

[viking8x6]

1 hour ago, mort said:

I wouldn't pay to much attention to the cure talk it's all BS.

 

Cures do not make $$$ what they are really doing is looking for treatments or prevention which wont be one dose but a long term making it fairly cost effective so they can sell it for a fair price but also make a nice amount when you take them for decades.

 

I'll disagree on this. You have to consider who is doing the research. These people are at a state university. They are much more likely to be doing research because they think it's the right thing to do, or because the government happens to be funding research in that area and their proposal looked more likely to give some kind of positive result.

[BannedWord]

18 minutes ago, viking8x6 said:

I'll disagree on this. You have to consider who is doing the research. These people are at a state university. They are much more likely to be doing research because they think it's the right thing to do, or because the government happens to be funding research in that area and their proposal looked more likely to give some kind of positive result.

They can do the research, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will actually lead to a drug that is a cure because it will still require Big Pharma to go through clinical trials, patient trials, patenting and a long process for what would only make them a one-time revenue stream. Cures aren't lucrative. Treatments are. Keep in mind the purpose of Big Pharma companies isn't necessarily to find cures or to actually eradicate diseases.

It is to provide a return on shareholder investment. Not being cynical, that's the case with any public company. And ongoing treatments create a dependency and an ongoing stream of revenue while they own the patent. So Mort is actually correct in the eyes of Pharma execs who need to explain these things to their Boards of Directors and Shareholders.

One hope against all that is the potential of that information being shared among researchers without patents or asserting intellectual property rights so that others can work toward an effective drug. If all the data and development is out there, it weakens the case for one party gaining a patent.

[viking8x6]

4 hours ago, TheSRQDude said:

They can do the research, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will actually lead to a drug that is a cure because it will still require Big Pharma...

Except that this is actually an instance of gene therapy, all of which is aimed at one-time cures for a variety of diseases. That mostly isn't provided by Big Pharma - although most of them are probably dipping toes in it - but by small biotechnology companies. I'm not sure what their profit model is, but there seem to be plenty of investors. Who, of course, are looking for growth gains rather than dividends, as they were from software in the .com boom 20 years ago. So perhaps there is some hope.

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

So perhaps there is some hope.

Indeed. The alternative is to assume - without regularly re-examining the evidence - that Big Pharma is "out to get us" by forcing us to stay on expensive medications forever, and to become a bitter nasty old queen who doesn't believe in hope.

We have an actual cure for Hepatitis C now - a very expensive one, yes, but compared with long-term treatment, it's still a relative bargain. It's one example, but it's clearly one that some group, somewhere, came up with. Despite all the nattering nabobs of negativism claiming Pharma doesn't want to cure anything. 

[BannedWord]

9 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Indeed. The alternative is to assume - without regularly re-examining the evidence - that Big Pharma is "out to get us" by forcing us to stay on expensive medications forever, and to become a bitter nasty old queen who doesn't believe in hope.

I'm not looking to be negative, and I hope that this does evolve into something closer to a cure. But I think it will 'when it benefits them', not when we think it should be there. Agreed that we have a Hep-C cure and an HPV vaccine now and those used to be pipe dreams. But I'm also realistic in the model behind Pharma that it only dispenses cures when there's a larger benefit or when the hue and cry becomes so overwhelming that they move in that direction.

I'm hopeful. But I'm not naive about how things work and the reality of the revenue model.