Is AIDS a thing of the past?

[Danoff]

AIDS is such an overblown issue, I really hope this ends it soon.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/03/28/aids.new.hope.ap/index.html

Can we work on cancer more now? Please? Even if this doesn't work out?

 

[Dave A]

AIDS is not a thing of the past and iyou tell people that have it that it's an overblow issue. It kills off hundereds of thousands of people, and it's all over the globe.

 

[Danoff]

AIDS is not a thing of the past and iyou tell people that have it that it's an overblow issue. It kills off hundereds of thousands of people, and it's all over the globe.

We have a simple method of prevention. Very simple (works every time).

 

[Dave A]

Yes, but it's already spread to so many people, also a lot of people that have it don't know they have it. Then you have the kid's that are born with it. Getting rid of AIDS could be almost done within 20 years, however going about getting rid of it is a different story. You can't always detect HIV in it's early stages. If it was taken MORE seriosly then I think we could at least be seeing a decrease in cases as opposed to constant increases. Not everyone that has it, has it because they were stupid or foolish, some people are born with it, some people are infected through blood in accidents, some are infected through sex by their partners or in one night stands. also condoms don't work every time, they arn't 100%, they just reduce the chances.

 

[Danoff]

Yeas, but it's already spread to so many people, also a lot of people that have it don't know they have it. Then you have the kid's that are born with it. Getting rid of AIDS could be almost done within 20 years, however going about getting rid of it is a different story. You can't always detect HIV in it's early stages. If it was taken MORE seriosly then I think we could at least be seeing a decrease in cases as opposed to constant increases.

Well, that article points out that we may be on to a cure of sorts so that people who don't take it very seriously can still avoid the disease.

It just seems odd to be dumping so many research dollars into a disease that we have a solution for.

 

[Dave A]

We have a solution to limit it, not prevent it completely, and it's a solution that can't be governed. having an actual cure would save millions of lives if it was distributed globally.

 

[Swift]

Well, that article points out that we may be on to a cure of sorts so that people who don't take it very seriously can still avoid the disease.

It just seems odd to be dumping so many research dollars into a disease that we have a solution for.

I have to agree with that. There are only two exceptions. People that get blood tranfusions and of course those born with it.

But just don't shoot up or have sex with people who's history you don't know. Done, it's officially impossible to get AIDS outside of that.

So, what Danoff said has a lot of merit. Cancer is somewhat preventable, but in general, anyone can get it. I'd much rather see a cure for that then the most preventable major disease on Earth.

 

[Danny]

I think AIDS might be a more pressing issue, with the millions of sufferers around the globe.

Although, Cancer cure would be an amazing breakthrough in it's own right.

 

[Swift]

I think AIDS might be a more pressing issue, with the millions of sufferers around the globe.

Although, Cancer cure would be an amazing breakthrough in it's own right.

How many millions of people have how many different types of cancer around the globe? I still contend that cancer is a more pressing matter. If people would keep it in their pants and the needles out of their arms, Aids would all but disappear.

 

[Danny]

And also over-population.

 

[Swift]

And also over-population.

Huh?

 

[Danny]

You'd be amazed how few celibate women become pregnant.

 

[Zrow]

You'd be amazed how few celibate women become pregnant.

I better see some statistics on that.

 

[Danny]

"And thus we can see that women who don't partake in sexual intercourse rarely develop a foetus. Trust me, I look clever."

Also you could use the joke "What did the sperm say to the egg? Nothing, they've never met".


You could also use that joke with left and right legs for women you don't like.

 

[Swift]

I see what you're talking about now. True enough.

 

[Kylehnat]

How many millions of people have how many different types of cancer around the globe? I still contend that cancer is a more pressing matter. If people would keep it in their pants and the needles out of their arms, Aids would all but disappear.

I agree completely. In my mind, diseases that come from sex or needle drugs are not worthy of our effort to cure them. The millions affected in Africa? Educate them, so they don't think that the cure for the disease is to rape a virgin.

 

[BMWteamPTG]

I agree completely. In my mind, diseases that come from sex or needle drugs are not worthy of our effort to cure them. The millions affected in Africa? Educate them, so they don't think that the cure for the disease is to rape a virgin.

i agree too...

but, regardless people are going to be idiots. so i think that an overall search for a cure for AIDS is what we need to be doing. also, if you think about it, AIDS is the only thing left on earth that cant be controlled (in a way). Small pox, polio, and more have been irradicated from earth. sure they still exist in a lab at the CDC but still, AIDS is all we need to conquer now i feel.

 

[Swift]

i agree too...

but, regardless people are going to be idiots. so i think that an overall search for a cure for AIDS is what we need to be doing. also, if you think about it, AIDS is the only thing left on earth that cant be controlled (in a way). Small pox, polio, and more have been irradicated from earth. sure they still exist in a lab at the CDC but still, AIDS is all we need to conquer now i feel.

There are an awful lot of viruses that we have serious problems with. Avian flu seems to be the one that has people scared the most right now.

But I guess from a bacteria standpoint you're right. Still though, I feel the time would be better spent on cancer research then AIDS research. I know it's easy for me to say since I don't have AIDS. But it's still how I feel.

 

[Danoff]

I feel the time would be better spent on cancer research then AIDS research.

The nice thing about this new development is that if it takes care of AIDS, which I really don't care much about, it frees up some researchers and research dollars for cancer and other diseases. So I hope these drugs work as well in humans as they have in monkeys.

 

[Zrow]

Education should be the major offensive force in AIDS stricken places like Africa - you have to attack the problem at the root.

 

[kennythebomb]

Education should be the major offensive force in AID's stricken places like Africa - you have to attack the problem at the root.

Exactly. Some of those tribal people believe screwing a virgin will cure you of AIDS.

 

[niky]

*ahurm* (I know we've talked of this before)...

Much as I agree that AIDS and combatting it is a problem best solved by abstinence, condoms and education (hey, let's A.C.E. A.I.D.S.), none of those "cures" have proven to work very well.

Preaching abstinence, for one, is like trying to ban alcohol... chances of that working? Maybe 50% if you're talking to educated westerners, 5% if you're talking to anyone else. Oh by the way, according to the Catholic Church... we're supposed to reproduce. (not a jib at any Christian... just at Papa Ratsi).

Condom use has traditionally been hampered by religious bias (still an issue in nun or priest run free clinics trying to treat AIDS patients in Africa) and availability. There's also the fact that you have to use condoms every time you want to have sex... not likely to happen if you're making less than a dollar a day. It's still the best solution, though.

Education - same as abstinence. Not likely to work very well in areas where the basics of education aren't very well established anyway.

I agree, people are stupid, but are you going to let those screwed virgins suffer for other people's mistakes?

This cocktail is much like the condom solution. Works to prevent it if you don't have it, thus, it does nothing for those who already have AIDS. Not to mention the cost... how much would it cost a non-Westerner to dose up every time they want to shack up? That's part of what hampers condom use in the real world, and if you have to take these drugs continuously, this development means zip for a lot of "at-risk" populations out there.

I think research into a vaccine for AIDS still has merit. I'm still waiting to hear about research results regarding those African prostitutes who have been found to be immune to infection (despite multiple infected partners). A vaccine would only have to be given once, and as the philanthropic Rotary Foundation has shown, it's very easy to spread if you have the willpower to do it.

But note... polio has not been eradicated. Not yet. There has been a recent increase in new cases, and vaccination drives are being stepped up to combat this.

-----

Cancer is a big problem, but a solution to Cancer is difficult, as it's a bodily malfunction rather than a disease. To cure Cancer, we would likely have to look into the process of aging, and find some way to prevent aging, or aspects of it. That's billions of dollars and quite a few decades away.

People have been getting the big "C" for ages... it's not entirely preventable, but given the proper diet and environmental conditions, chances are minimal, and with early intervention, it's cureable. So why should we waste money on something people can avoid having or cure if they spot it quickly enough? (Just to throw the question back at you guys... I do believe Cancer Research is a worthy endeavor).

 

[a6m5]

Education is important no doubt, but what good will it do when the soldiers are raping women in Africa at gunpoint?

I think cancer research is more important, but I don't see why we should have to stop researching AIDS.

 

[Max_DC]

Well there is a lot of research on cancer, so where is the problem ? You can't really compare AIDS and cancer, you know cancer is so much more complex...
You can't just blow 10 as much money as now into cancer research and get satisfying results. Of course money helps, but there really is a lot of research, so no need to worry danoff ...
Yesterday I saw a report about a town in texas without sexual education in school and all those republican bible readers who were in control of everything... THAT is not the way to solve problems like AIDS....

 

[Touring Mars]

In my mind, diseases that come from sex .... are not worthy of our effort to cure them.

That's craziness - the ideal that people should only have unprotected sex with others who have never had unprotected sex before is not the way the real world works. Saying that people with AIDS (or other STD's) are not worthy of a cure implies a moral judgement that is totally unwarranted (in my opinion). People with AIDS deserve treatment, regardless of the method of infection... The fact that AIDS still carries with it the stigma of being considered a 'self-inflicted' disease - similarly to lung cancer - is totally counterproductive. You seem to be implying that people intentionally disregard the risks (and in the case of lung cancer, many smokers do exactly this), when in reality most people at high risk of AIDS (i.e. young people, esp. those in Africa) do not know the risks and (more importantly) don't have access to basic methods of contraceptives (i.e. condoms)...

The millions affected in Africa? Educate them, so they don't think that the cure for the disease is to rape a virgin.

Massive efforts have already been expended attempting to 'educate' people - but thus far it hasn't (completely) worked. Only in the broader context of a multilateral approach to tackling AIDS can education work. In a continent ravaged by war, stricken by poverty and rife with AIDS, I find it vaguely patronising to simply say 'educate them'...

Niky has hit the nail on the head in several ways... for me, I feel that debating how and why people get AIDS is beside the point... the fact is that AIDS is rife and is still spreading, and current efforts to stop it are inadequate.

Much as I agree that AIDS and combatting it is a problem best solved by abstinence, condoms and education (hey, let's A.C.E. A.I.D.S.), none of those "cures" have proven to work very well.

Preaching abstinence, for one, is like trying to ban alcohol... chances of that working? Maybe 50% if you're talking to educated westerners, 5% if you're talking to anyone else. Oh by the way, according to the Catholic Church... we're supposed to reproduce. (not a jib at any Christian... just at Papa Ratsi).

Condom use has traditionally been hampered by religious bias (still an issue in nun or priest run free clinics trying to treat AIDS patients in Africa) and availability. There's also the fact that you have to use condoms every time you want to have sex... not likely to happen if you're making less than a dollar a day. It's still the best solution, though.

Education - same as abstinence. Not likely to work very well in areas where the basics of education aren't very well established anyway.

👍

Only when some of the so-called 'educators' get their facts right as well will education be a potent weapon in the fight against AIDS. You're right about the abstinence thing - it's usually a religion/faith-based issue (i.e. a code for 'moral behaviour') rather than a genuine attempt to stop the spread of disease... there are much better ways of stopping disease than telling teenagers to stop having sex... (see related article here...)

Common myths about AIDS are also all too rife... even South African leader Thabo Mbeki refuses to acknowledge that AIDS even exists, let alone a massive problem that his continent faces...

 

[BMWteamPTG]

There are an awful lot of viruses that we have serious problems with. Avian flu seems to be the one that has people scared the most right now.

But I guess from a bacteria standpoint you're right. Still though, I feel the time would be better spent on cancer research then AIDS research. I know it's easy for me to say since I don't have AIDS. But it's still how I feel.

avian flu, i forgot about that...but there are teams of scientists working on that now too..

cancer, that will come soon i think. same as diabetes. but cancer is close but not the number one killer (i think). heart disease is. so eating better should also be put out there as well.

 

[Jimmy Enslashay]

Cancer should have more money thrown into it than AIDS, as we are much further away from a breakthrough on curing cancer, and people seem to care less and less about cancer these days.

However, I disagree with you guys about AIDS. As has been said previously, what about people that are born with it? Blood transfusions? What about people who are raped by somebody who has AIDS? Accidents? These things all do happen, and it would be unfair on these people who have a high chance of dying from something that they couldn't prevent, to simply cease trying to find a way to cure it.

Both issues need to be pressed. It's like picking a favourite child. You shouldn't do it. It's immoral. I realise that this would cost quite a lot of money, but time and money should be spent finding cures for both. Saving people's lives shouldn't be debated, nor should there be any excuse for not attempting to do so.

 

[Touring Mars]

Cancer should have more money thrown into it than AIDS, as we are much further away from a breakthrough on curing cancer, and people seem to care less and less about cancer these days.

Very possibly true - but that doesn't change the actual amount of money that is required to tackle AIDS independently of considerations about other diseases... of course, there is only so much to go around, but there is already a massive amount of money for cancer research too..

However, I disagree with you guys about AIDS. As has been said previously, what about people that are born with it? Blood transfusions? What about people who are raped by somebody who has AIDS? Accidents? These things all do happen, and it would be unfair on these people who have a high chance of dying from something that they couldn't prevent, to simply cease trying to find a way to cure it.

While I agree with these points entirely, I'd go further still... these incidences of AIDS that you mention all imply 'non self-inflicted' AIDS, or 'AIDS without moral wrong-doing'... (or as UK comedian Chris Morris would say, 'Good AIDS')... but what about people with 'Bad AIDS' i.e. everyone else... (who are in the vast majority)? The sooner we get away from the perception that there is a difference, the better. We either connect AIDS with 'moral' behaviour or we must disconnect it entirely.

 

[BMWteamPTG]

Cancer should have more money thrown into it than AIDS, as we are much further away from a breakthrough on curing cancer, and people seem to care less and less about cancer these days.

However, I disagree with you guys about AIDS. As has been said previously, what about people that are born with it? Blood transfusions? What about people who are raped by somebody who has AIDS? Accidents? These things all do happen, and it would be unfair on these people who have a high chance of dying from something that they couldn't prevent, to simply cease trying to find a way to cure it.

Both issues need to be pressed. It's like picking a favourite child. You shouldn't do it. It's immoral. I realise that this would cost quite a lot of money, but time and money should be spent finding cures for both. Saving people's lives shouldn't be debated, nor should there be any excuse for not attempting to do so.

well put my friend...people lives are at stake. and we shouldnt think of them as numbers. they are people. i realize that there are people who are raped and born with AIDS. but no one with AIDS should be looked over. true? true.

 

[Jimmy Enslashay]

While I agree with these points entirely, I'd go further still... these incidences of AIDS that you mention all imply 'non self-inflicted' AIDS, or 'AIDS without moral wrong-doing'... (or as UK comedian Chris Morris would say, 'Good AIDS')... but what about people with 'Bad AIDS' i.e. everyone else... (who are in the vast majority)? The sooner we get away from the perception that there is a difference, the better. We either connect AIDS with 'moral' behaviour or we must disconnect it entirely.

Absolutely, I agree entirely. I was merely stating that even if certain people disagree with a cure for self-inflicted AIDS (which I share the same views as yourself on), you cannot simply believe that AIDS is entirely self-inflicted, and that we should just cut funding on it due to self-infliction.

I'm sure that nobody is going to protest against curing lung cancer from somebody who has smoked cigarettes their whole life. Why protest against somebody who may have had unprotected sex just once? Both are bad decisions. You don't always have to feel the full repercussions of bad decisions. People constantly learn from experiences.