To: Peter Singleton who wrote (4737 ) 7/5/1998 8:43:00 PM From: Izzy Read Replies (2) | Respond to
Peter, thank you for posting Abelson's commentary in the July 6, 1998 issue of Barron's (p. 3-4). I have just a few comments (I have not completely sorted out my thoughts, yet). HIV/AIDS, as it is known now, is an infectious, communicable, fatal disease and I would fully expect a variety of ongoing treatment attempts until a "cure" is found. My concern, as I have stated before, is the lack of (or inappropriate) treatment being made available in the 3rd word countries (and even India has an estimated 4 million HIV cases). Eg. there is either no treatment being offered or, at best, monotherapy AZT is given. My point: I think eventually a "gold standard" 3 drug approach will be needed throughout the world if this disease is to be controlled. I expect that AZT (hopefully will be replaced) and Viracept (so far, I really don't see a better PI on the near horizon) will be 2 of the 3 drugs (now if AGPH/Roche will just lower the price). Obviously, more sophisticated treatment programs will be used in the US, and other countries, and there will be ongoing clinical trials for the next several years so that several drug data will continue to come out, which will probably be confusing to most. However, doctors will always prescribe treatments that they fully understand, not what they necessarily hear/read about. For example, penicillin, in spite of numerous new antibiotics, is still effective clinically and is being prescribed. Digitalis (Lanoxin, digoxin), in spite of several new cardiac drugs, is still being used. So, to end this gibberish, don't be overly concerned about some adverse commentary reports being made about HIV/AIDS drugs/companies. I firmly believe that AGPH is "doing things right" and I'm staying with a winner, IMO. Abelson et al can just hope that they don't catch "it." <eom>
