Home » blogs » Abby's blog

Life is a Right

Submitted by Abby on 17 November, 2005 - 2:09pm. Med-Tech Blog

(In response to "Handheld Puts AIDS Fight in Field")
Kudos goes out to the team of scientists at Harvard and the University of Texas at Austin who developed the CD4 sensor system. Obviously, there are other HIV diagnostic instruments available. One of these is the Uni-Gold Recombigen HIV test that requires just one drop of whole blood, plasma, or serum to detect HIV(visit: US FDA approves 10 minute HIV test). What makes the CD4 different is the reprogramming of the chip to detect other diseases such as those of the heart as well as cancers. Now, this is all good in that it will detect HIV cheaply, but the question is for whom will it be cheap? It appears as if the cost for development along with all the reprogramming chips is going to be a tidy sum of money, and of course, the reproduction of this technology is going to cost money as well. And if this is going to be shipped to the sub-Saharan Africa, how much are these quick and easy tests going to cost the people getting tested or the testing programs in which that partake? Uni-Gold’s test costs approximately $10 U.S. dollars, which is by far too much when you take into account the total population that will be tested. With HIV and AIDS being a worldly and deadly epidemic, shouldn’t hands be lent (money saved) to save lives? Isn’t life a right? Now, let’s just say that the price of the CD4 is pretty cheap (at least less than Uni-Gold’s $10 price); what is going to be done for treatment? Treatment is still too costly for the general African population, not to say the least for the world population. Again, life is a right, and we should do all that can be done to promote it, even if it means putting less money in our pockets Mr. Scientist and Ms. LabNow Technician.

» Abby's blog | login or register to post comments |

One Step At a Time

Submitted by thanhtran on 20 November, 2005 - 5:41pm.

Abby, I understand the points you are making about the CD4 system. True, it may seem that we're investing more time in detecting these diseases than curing them, and I think that is a somewhat pessimistic outlook. I think the CD4 systems have made lab technology more progressive and efficient. We should take one step at a time, starting with diagnosis.

Since HIV has been spreading for decades, scientists no doubt have been searching for a cure, or at least a way to fight the disease. Simultaneously there has been much inefficacy in developing countries where the first step in diagnosing seems to be the last. I think that once the CD4 systems are put to work, they will help prevent the disease from spreading, and prepare more people to fight the disease, and buy them more precious time. In the long run, a plan that helps prevent the disease from spreading seems to me the most effective than focusing so much energy on the cure. In health research, the preventive strategy is the one that is the cheapest and most effective than curing a disease. You also mention how expensie the treatment will be, but you don't compare it on a relative level. The treatment will definately be relatively cheaper and faster than what it is now.

» login or register to post comments