Proposals to Cure HIV Research
May 3, 2005
A cure would be treatment that would allow people infected with HIV to live a full normal lifespan in good health. This requires a treatment that does not cause side effects that shorten life or harm quality of life.
People are dying unnecessarily because other priorities have dominated the HIV funding and treatment-approval process.
1. All labs that receive government funds to research HIV should be required to publish annual reports, available on the internet and publicized, stating: --what questions they have tried to answer that year --exactly what steps they have taken to answer them --what successes they have had that year --what "failures" they have had that year and exactly why they think these took place --what specific questions are still awaiting results --exactly what they are doing next year to follow-up on these results
2. All FDA decisions about HIV treatments should be posted on the same site and subject to the same process of public comment.
The FDA and NIH spend millions on HIV research every year. Although this research has led to profitable drugs that extend life but cause side effects, it has not led to a cure.
Natural therapies, patent-free therapies, immune-based therapies, gene therapy and other promising treatments are delayed, given small trials, or not followed-up at all.
It is time to open this process to honest scrutiny.
If you wish to discuss this proposal please go to: The Cure for HIV http://aidsmeds.com/Fusetalk/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=19220
or Proposals to Cure AIDS and HIV http://aidsmeds.com/Fusetalk/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=19632
Response from Dr. Pierone
Hi and thanks for the post. I did visit the link and the aidsmeds.com site is a great resource. I agree with you that publicly funded research should be made accessible to the public. I don't know how this would best be achieved without major additions to the work list of already overburdened research staff. I do know that successful NIH sponsored research proposals are lengthy, detailed, complicated, competitive, and time consuming. I don't know what the reporting requirements are, but suspect that they are equally detailed. There should be some way to distill this information down to a user friendly format to track research status and outcomes. The NIH web site would probably be a good starting point to look into this. Activist oversight is a crucial element in what should be a transparent research agenda.
Get Email Notifications When This Forum Updates or Subscribe With RSS
This forum is designed for educational purposes only, and experts are not rendering medical, mental health, legal or other professional advice or services. If you have or suspect you may have a medical, mental health, legal or other problem that requires advice, consult your own caregiver, attorney or other qualified professional.
Experts appearing on this page are independent and are solely responsible for editing and fact-checking their material. Neither TheBody.com nor any advertiser is the publisher or speaker of posted visitors' questions or the experts' material.