Study of First Medical Device To Treat HIV/AIDS is completed

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Aethlon Medical Completes First Medical Device Study To Treat HIV/AIDS
Article Date: 28 Jan 2009 -

Aethlon Medical, Inc. (OTCBB:AEMD) announced that it has completed the "first-in-man" study of a medical device to treat Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), the disease that causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). In the study, an HIV-infected individual completed a twelve treatment study of the Aethlon Hemopurifier® administered thrice weekly over the course of 30-days. The Hemopurifier® is a therapeutic filtration device that serves as an artificial adjunct to the immune system. In HIV care the Hemopurifier® targets the clearance of all circulating strains of infectious HIV, including those varieties that cause patients to fail antiviral drug regimens. Additionally, the device assists to preserve immune response through the removal of gp120 and other toxic proteins shed by HIV to kill-off immune cells, the hallmark of AIDS. The study was conducted at the Sigma New Life Hospital in Punjab, India. Initial viral load and immune cell data resulting from the study are expected to be available for disclosure in mid-February.

...more at the link
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/136862.php

[Celebration]

1. I hope this works, obviously

The company will command a huge price from big pharma, if it works, and then it will probably be extensively tested for six or eight months, and then shelved.

[cosmik debris]

2. What astounding irony

Just a few days ago you were complaining that the Indian drug industry(and all international drug industries) fell into the clutches of BIG PHARMA because they were withholding a cure for diabetes.

Now suddenly the Indian drug industry is independent and on the verge of curing AIDS.

:rofl:

Things that make you go Hmmmm?

[Celebration]

3. just posting a news item

Though I do agree with you that *if* by some chance this is effective, it will likely not see the light of day for a long, long while. Patents are easily bought and shelved.

[cosmik debris]

4. I never said that. ????

I was merely commenting that one day the OP whines that the Indian drug industry--and ALL drug industries--are in cahoots with Big Pharma.

A couple of days later the same poster reports that the Indian drug industry is on the verge of curing HIV and undercutting big pharma's profits.

If this works, it is worth BILLIONS of $$$$. Do you really think a multi BILLION dollar patent will be put on the shelf? That seems pretty silly to me.

[xchrom]

5. stop talking sense. nt

[Celebration]

6. sure I do

It's worth a ton of money if it cures AIDs. But it is worth less money than the drugs that are now being used.

[cosmik debris]

8. The cure (if it works) is made by an Indian company

The treatment is made by Euro-American companies.

And your theory is that this Indian company will fore go those billions of dollars-and probably a Nobel Prize-for the benefit of the Euro-American companies.

Why would the Indian company give up fame and fortune?

Do you think they don't want to be rich and famous?

They have a very powerful motive to bring this to market if it works.

They have absolutely no motive hide it or allow it to be hidden unless it fails.

[Celebration]

9. ummm

The patent would be BOUGHT, by the pharmaceutical companies making gobs of money currently on approved drugs.

The Indian company would still make a lot of money. They might reserve the rights to some of the royalties, but they better be very careful with the contracts.

Look at the history of Lilly buying the rights to Transition Therapeutics. This has been an on again off again saga.

The latest is this

"In addition to smaller milestone payments and royalties, Ms. Flint said the forecast launch for gastrin will be delayed in the U.S. until 2015 and in Europe until 2014, because Lilly will likely perform a thorough phase II program before progressing to phase III."

In this case Lilly paces itself. The longer it can put off approval of a drug, the more profits they can reap from insulin. Now, they do have to be careful with this. They need to appear as if they are progressing.

Also, they have to have an eye to the competition. If someone else comes up with something similar, they want to get in before them. But, sans that, they own the rights, or most of the rights, and have control over the pace of this.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/68988-transition-therapeutics-boost-from-eli-lilly-deal-short-lived

[cosmik debris]

11. It doesn't make any sense

"They might reserve the rights to some of the royalties..."

There will be no royalties if your theory is correct.

And they would clearly make more money developing the ideas themselves.

Selling the patent wouldn't make sense unless the drug company paid a premium above market value. And with those billions of dollars invested, they would have to show prompt returns on the investment by marketing the device.

But according to your theory, the Board Of Directors will be quite comfortable with a multi billion dollar investment with 0.00% return.

Apparently they are not as greedy as you seem to believe they are.

Your theory gets more and more convoluted with each post.

[trotsky]

13. "Your theory gets more and more convoluted with each post."

Theories of the global paranoid conspiracy variety usually do.

[cosmik debris]

15. I never get tired of this quote.

"Many doctors now argue that reporters should treat the antivaccine lobby with the same indifference they do Holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers and those claiming to have proof that NASA faked the Moon landings."

[Celebration]

21. It isn't either/or

It could be sold outright for $$, and then slowed down by the pharma company making megabucks on current treatments. It would be bought before approval or USA trials at a more affordable amount, but still a tremendous profit for the the shareholders of the selling company, but at a lower amount than the present value of the stream of profits of the current medication.

Or, if that didn't work, the developing company could sell it for some amount in exchange for developing the product, but keeping some royalties. But the result could be the same. In this case the Indian company would have to have all kinds of clauses in there ensuring development of the product. This happened, actually once with Lilly and Transition Therapeutics. TT got out of one product deal with them because they weren't moving it forward. Seems like they are sort of back in that same situation. Keep in mind these little companies have no access to the kind of bucks needed to develop the product.

This isn't rocket science. The problem comes with any involvement at all from a pharma company with a product that makes money off the same illness--they just slow everything down.

[cosmik debris]

24. There is no motive

for one greedy capitalist company to sell out a Nobel Prize and billions of dollars in profit just to protect a competitor's profits.

That's not the way capitalism works.

Companies don't sacrifice themselves to protect their competitors.

(and I stand corrected, it is not an Indian company)

[Celebration]

25. actually, it does

Remember people these days are in for quick profits. Unfortunately they don't look at the long term, especially when there is some uncertainty before Phase III trials. Also, the little companies are cash strapped, and usually they have to enter into some kind of marketing deal with big pharma anyway-- because of the cost, the length of the trials, the knowledge about jumping through FDA hoops, and the actual distribution of the drug. So these type deals make marketing sense. The potential problem is what big pharma does after that.

[cosmik debris]

26. That's just nuts. n/t

[trotsky]

7. Cognitive dissonance is not something registers with some people.

It is obviously not a Republican-only phenomenon.

Go Democrats!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

10. what the hell are you smoking? apparently you didn't get the "literacy" vaccine

too bad.

Again, your efforts to tar others who you disagree with are yet so transparent.

[trotsky]

12. Kinda like "Go Democrats," huh?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

19. Good thing no one in here is "pro big pharma/greed" then, huh?

Well, your strawmen are, I suppose.

Go Democrats!

[cosmik debris]

14. In the OP you presented evidence

Of vibrant, robust international competition in the medical research.

But when you posted on the subject of the conspiracy to suppress a cure for diabetes, you completely ignored the vibrant, robust international competition.

You shot your conspiracy theory in the foot.

You can't just pretend that it doesn't exist when your conspiracy theory can't explain it.

[Orrex]

27. If he'd gotten the 'literacy' vaccine, wouldn't that have prevented him from developing literacy?

Kind of like woos, who all seem to get the "critical thinking" vaccine or else have a natural immunity to it...

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmik debris]

20. From the OP:

"The study was conducted at the Sigma New Life Hospital in Punjab, India."

That is, as I said, evidence of vibrant, robust competition in the medical research business.

You ignore competition when it doesn't agree with your conspiracy theory.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

18. Aethlon Medical "headquartered in San Diego, California."

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=aemd.ob

to correct "Cosmik Debris" attempt to hijack this thread into a discussion into something else.

This OP is about a device that may effectively treat AIDS.

But some people apparently hate that idea so much that they hijacked this thread for their
own petty reasons.

[semillama]

22. Nice straw man.

nowhere in this thread did any poster indicate they hate the idea of an effective HIV treatment.

Perhaps you are confusing Cosmik Debris' intolorence for bullshit with that, though.

[Celebration]

23. The problem is

Around here if you say that some Merck executives acted in an unprincipled way with regard to Vioxx, and that it caused many people to actually DIE, you are not simultaneously allowed (by certain posters) to want a cure for AIDS from another, different pharmaceutical company.

In fact, I don't see why a person couldn't legitimately, simultaneously hold those two views. I certainly do.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmik debris]

30. I stand corrected, but my argument is still valid.

There is robust competition in the drug research market. You ignore it when your conspiracy theory can't deal with it, but you post about it when you aren't pushing your crackpot conspiracy.

Why didn't you acknowledge the competitive nature of the industry when you were pushing your conspiracy theory? Is it like the "faked moon landing" conspiracy? Or maybe like the holocaust deniers conspiracy?

[Liberal Veteran]

29. This is somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure how it would address HIV reservoirs.

One of the big problems with any blood filtering based treatment is that it can't do much about the reservoirs of HIV that exist in places like the lymph nodes (as opposed to HIV particles in the bloodstream).

For example. I have been undetectable for viral particles in my blood for going on 8 years now thanks to antiviral therapy, but if I stop taking the medication, those reservoirs can still produce viral particles and infect circulating t-cells in my blood.

I can see some use in this for multi-drug resistant strains and those unable to tolerate antivirals, but I don't believe it can do much in the way of curing someone of HIV.

[xchrom]

31. well i am EXTREMELY sceptical about the efficacy of this 'device'

re: HIV.

IF and i mean a great big fat if -- there is no conspiracy big enough to keep it out of being put to use.

making this thread cruel.

[Liberal Veteran]

32. Oh, I am too. Filtering the blood in some manner has been suggested as a treatment before.

And even tried. So has heating the blood. Neither has shown much efficacy and both have potential adverse effects that tilt the scales away from that kind of procedure.

However, as a therapy of last resort, it might prove useful. I can't see a procedure like this being more cost effective in the long term than antivirals. Depending on how often such a treatment might be needed, you could be looking at a cost AND inconvenience comparable with that of dialysis.

[xchrom]

33. it certainly would be more expensive and the comparison with dialysis is spot on. nt

[trotsky]

34. Interesting info.

I was not aware of the reservoirs. That does tend to damper any enthusiasm for a blood "conditioning" type treatment.