Xref: utzoo sci.bio:2331 soc.motss:20344 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!boulder!pell From: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) Newsgroups: sci.bio,soc.motss Subject: Re: Why AZT is so expensive Message-ID: <11864@boulder.Colorado.EDU> Date: 20 Sep 89 17:16:12 GMT References: <11815@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <929@paperboy.OSF.ORG> <4620@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU Reply-To: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Lines: 61 In article <4620@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: >Pelletier should know better than to make such an irresponsible statement >as he has, but he's just another controversialist who would prefer to drop >a bomb into the middle of a group of people who don't necessarily have the >background to give his comment (along with the _Native's_ ravings) the >isolation it deserves. He'd sing another tune about AZT's uselessness >were he HIV+ and exhibiting early symptoms of AIDS or ARC. > Sorry to offend you steve. Remember i did not say I subscribed to conspiracy theories and there are alot of polemics, as was pointed out. I merely wondered why more was not made of it. I guess I could be said to be dropping a bomb. But I think you are underestimating the audience here if you think they could not tell that I was not propogating the controversy, just asking about it. I also did not bring in the "Native's" ravings. Someone else did. I think, at best, the efficacy of AZT is debatable. It may prolong life, it may not. The controlled studies to test it are not going to be done (who wants to be in the control group?). Its in vitro effect on the the replication of the virus certainly is not in doubt (nor is even this effect 100%) and the biological basis of the effect is well understood. What is in doubt is how effective preventing RT-mediated replication will be in preventing the devastating effects of the disease. You should know this. Its means of spreading once established is not understood, nor is its means of killing more cells than it appears to infect (perhaps fusing them, but it is not clear). It need not use RT to do this. As for me singing a different tune if I had the disease: It is interesting that a couple of people have pointed that out. Personally, I would not wish that on anyone in anger like that. I might want to try AZT or some other experimental drug. I am, by profession, an experimentalist. I might try it out of professional curiosity. I don't know how I would react. And if I don't know, certainly you don't. --------------------------------------- Whether the virus is the causative agent of the disease or not is debated by some, but I think the evidence for its role is pretty conclusive. The arguments I have read for the other side seem poorly founded. But, I would be open to hearing some of the ones people think are good. I don't think the one issue has to be related to the other--whether or not HIV is the cause, the efficacy of AZT can be debated. All I meant was that, sociologically, I find it interesting. We have learned to live with cancer, as a culture. If someone has in-operable cancer and several doctors tell him he will die, we feel sorry about it, but accept it. We accept that medical science is doing its best. If he goes to spend his money and little remaining time in Mexico at a clinic that says they can help, we see the doctors there as quacks and con-men taking money from a dying man. AIDS is different. Many people see medical science and the pharmacutical industry as an advisary--or at best, an untrustworthy ally with whom one deals out of desperation. When science says "there is nothing more we can do" they are accused of holding back. People offering the latest "cure" are saviors rather than quacks. I'm not sure I know why this is true. I was curious about it. Sorry if I offended some. -tony