Testing the First AIDS Vaccine

[Nemesis77]

A question: How did this thread turn in to "I don't want my money to be spent on AIDS vaccine!" and general whining about how much money is spent on AIDS research. When in this article they clearly say that this is a private company that is doing the research. Your money is not being spent, unless you are an investor in this company (and I assume you are not). Hell, that company could use that investor-money as a landfill, and it still wouldn't be your concern. Why do you care how other people use their money?

 

[tcsenter]

A question: How did this thread turn in to "I don't want my money to be spent on AIDS vaccine!" and general whining about how much money is spent on AIDS research. When in this article they clearly say that this is a private company that is doing the research. Your money is not being spent, unless you are an investor in this company (and I assume you are not). Hell, that company could use that investor-money as a landfill, and it still wouldn't be your concern. Why do you care how other people use their money?

haha, it just went from one thing to another. I guess it started when I expressed my less than enthusiastic interest in an HIV vaccine because, due to my own personal life-style choices, my time and energy would be better served worrying about things that I'm at a greater risk for, such as being struck by lightening or being attacked by a shark.

As an ASIDE, I questioned the wisdom of spending finite and limited public resources on what amounts to be little more than treating a SYMPTOM of a problem, not the source. HIV is not the problem, it is a symptom, high risk sexual behavior and devient life-styles are the problem.

Diseases have come and gone, and will continue to come and go, among that small subset of the population who by the nature of their behavior place themselves at risk for the disease du jour which poses little risk to rest of the population.

Our approach to AIDs has in essence been the philosophical equivalent of blaming microbes for food-borne illness, not unsanitary meat processing and storage practices. If we were to model our effort to ensure the safety of the food supply after our approach to AIDs, we would allow the most atrocious meat processing conditions ever known, asserting that was not the problem, then focusing billions on trying to find a "vaccine" or "treatment" for people who will contract illness after the fact due to those atrocious meat processing conditions.

 

[dfi]

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Meh, I'm not an IV drug user, I do not have sex with men, I do not have sex with prostitutes, I do not have sex with IV drug users, I'm rather monogamous and don't have sex with people I barely know. The last thing I could care about is an AIDs vaccine.

But what a wonderful day it is in America that almost as much money is spent on AIDs research as cancer research so that people can engage in all of the behaviors above without risk. Hurray.

Pretty much my feelings, I only have sex with one woman & both of us have only had one partner (each other).

AIDS is about as high on my list of worries as being kidnapped & anally probed by aliens.

Viper GTS

You guys aren't thinking beyond the foot of your own beds. What about other nations (Africa and India come to mind)? Wouldn't it be nice if we could stem the tide of a disease that is effectively excising the middle of their populations? Or should we just let them die because there are more important domestic issues at hand?

Um, so in Africa and India, people don't get AIDS from sleeping around, but instead they will be just minding their own business, tilling their fields or whatnot, and just mysteriuously come down with the disease? Riiight. It's sad that so many children contract the disease from their mothers who slept around, but wouldn't the disease have been under control by now if all the money that goes towards a cure for this *preventable* disease had gone to education all along? If people were more responsible the disease would be wiped out in a generation.

You're talking about developing nations......what is this "money for education" you're referring to?

Was it that hard? Was it? Okay, here it is:

1) People amass large pile of dough to use towards research to find a vaccine/cure for AIDS.
2) People then take Large Pile of Dough, and instead of using it for research, they give it to someone.
3) Those people go to Africa, India, your developing nation of choice, etc., and tell the people there, "Hey, don't screw around, you'll get AIDs and die!"
4) People realize the error of their ways and stop sleeping around.
5) AIDS goes away completely within 20 years
6) No more AIDS

I'm going to assume you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, since it is quite obvious from your post.

We are talking about people who are so poor that they cant afford a toilet, or shoes, much less pavement. We're talking about countries like Kenya where 90% of the population have at least 1 type of worms infestation, and 60% have at least 2 types of worms. We're talking about countries where people are so poor that infant mortality rates are highest in the world.

"We should just send them money to educate them", you say? Look up World Bank, IMF, and NGOs. Add up the amount of money that has been poured into South Africa since the 1970s. Add up the amount of debt these countries are in. I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think it's somewhere into the billions of US dollars.

So what you're telling me is that after 30 years of economic assistance and advise from first world country organization and world class economists, that you have come up with the solution to end AIDS in subsaharan Africa?

Also, to add, drugs and vaccines are often times developed by PRIVATE companies. So don't worry, your money is not being spent. And since there are international patents protecting pharmaceutical from imitation, they can set the price at any levels they want. So don't worry, people will still be dying of AIDS.

dfi

 

[dfi]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

As an ASIDE, I questioned the wisdom of spending finite and limited public resources on what amounts to be little more than treating a SYMPTOM of a problem, not the source. HIV is not the problem, it is a symptom, high risk sexual behavior and devient life-styles are the problem.

Diseases have come and gone, and will continue to come and go, among that small subset of the population who by the nature of their behavior place themselves at risk for the disease du jour which poses little risk to rest of the population.

Before HIV, did people die from sex? After HIV, did people die from sex? Which is the cause of death, sex or HIV?

If you treat the symptoms, then the source of the problem will cause the symptoms to resurface. If you treat the source, then the symptoms no longer occurs. I agree with that.

We could educate people on the risks, and if people had less sex and were more careful, then we could stop the spread of AIDS. If there was a vaccine developed, then we could also stop the spread of AIDS. In both cases, you have prevented people from dying of AIDS. So in both cases, you have prevented the symptom (people dying from AIDS) from reoccurring. Wouldn't you say, then, that both of these approaches strike at the source of the problem (people dying)?

Also, which is really cheaper? An educational campaign, or a vaccine? Keep in mind that companies can charge for vaccines, but government spending increases with an educational campaign. (Well, technically, governments sometimes spend money on research and development, but that money is also helping a pharmaceutical to bring in profit and hire employees.)

Btw, an entire continent is NOT a "small subset of the population." "Who by the nature of their behavior place themselves at risk"... I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but it almost sounds like you're saying "too bad for those people; unlike them, I was born with the ability to control my baser instincts." Behavior can be both instinctive and learned.

And honestly, isn't mankind's true evolutionary advantage our brain? Survival of the fittest is not so much a physical survival, but a technological survival. We've change the environment to accomodate our lives. Instead of living in caves, we built houses. Instead of being cold during the winter, we built heaters. Well, instead of having less sex and dying of AIDS, why can't we just get rid of AIDS?

"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few." I'm not actually sure I agree with that, but it certainly is a convincing argument for an AIDS vaccine if you do.

dfi

 

[NetworkDad]

Does anyone honestly think they'll ever find a cure for aids?

Think about it, the drug companies are making billions of dollars off this deal. I'm sure they'd love to keep this going on. - Just my $.02 of course.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: NetworkDad
Does anyone honestly think they'll ever find a cure for aids?

Think about it, the drug companies are making billions of dollars off this deal. I'm sure they'd love to keep this going on. - Just my $.02 of course.

Right, but they'll make even more if they come up with (and patent) a cure. Every biotech firm wants to hit the home run, not just a bunch of singles. I worked for a biotech firm that basically went under because they put all their eggs in one basket this way and the FDA shot the drug down in phase III trials.

 

[Yeeny]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Anything that can prevent one cancer, will most likely lead to prevention/cures for the others

But you didn't answer my question as it was asked. These clinical trials are not being done so that smokers can smoke for 50 years worry free. They are being done on metastatic tumors which spread to the lungs from other cancers in the body, which is a very common cause of lung cancers. Nice try, anyway, though.

Number one, I don't need to "try" anything. Believe me, I am not out to impress you, and your sarcastic replies only show how you have to try and win an argument. Any cure/vaccine for cancer would obviously help lung cancer caused by smoking, considering most lung cancer is caused by smoking in the first place. Common sense, its a good thing, try using it.

Number two, get off your high horse. You stick your penis in someone, you are at risk. That simple. So unless you plan on staying a virgin the rest of your life, never getting a shot, blood transfusion, getting bled on by someone else, or any bodily fluids on you, you are at risk, plain and simple. This is a threat to the entire world, and fortunately, scientists got a hell of a lot smarter than people like you years ago and realized it. You may not sleep with a prostitute, drug user, or a homosexual, but what if someone you sleep with does? Bang, there goes your risk factor sky high. Not everyone is honest about their sexual past, in fact, most people lie about it. Now, you want to keep thinking your way, with your rose colored glasses on, thats fine. But I like living in reality, and realizing my odds, and playing them to my advantage. To each their own. I'm done responding to you, you have no respect for anyone who doesn't agree with you anyway, and I have better things to do with my time.

 

[tcsenter]

Number two, get off your high horse. You stick your penis in someone, you are at risk. That simple.

Sure, if you are alive you are at risk of death. Some people will be attacked by sharks, some people will be struck by lightening, some people will be run-down by an errant MTA bus, some people will be in an airline crash, some people will have a tree crash through their roof, and some monogamous people who do not use IV drugs, have sex with neither IV drug users, prostitutes nor other men, will contract HIV. I'm not constantly looking over my shoulder, worrying about an errant MTA bus, how about you?

The term "risk" indicates a probability, a likelihood, your "odds" of some event happening. When you say, "everyone is at risk", no more meaningless statement has ever been uttered. Risk is not risk is not risk. When you see "risk", you should translate that to "odds", always. You know, like your "odds" of winning the Big Game Lotto Jackpot? Yeah, just like that.

So when your surgeon tells you that post-operative bleeding, infection, and death are the "risks" of your surgery, you should NOT interpret that to mean that your risk of death is the same as your risk of post-operative bleeding, since bleeding is a very common complication, while death is a very uncommon complication, of surgery.

You go on babbling something incoherent about "reality", well what do you think reality is all about? Odds, probabilities, and risks. Do you go around constantly looking over your shoulder, ever fearful that an errant MTA bus will jump the curve and run you down? Why not? Its happened to others, and it "could" happen to you, too. Do you hide under your bed, ever fearful of a 3-ton aircraft engine crashing through your roof? Why not? Its happened to others, and it "could" happen to you, too. "Everyone is at risk" of these things happening to them.

But I suspect you go about your business worrying very little about errant MTA busses and aircraft engines. Why? Because the "risk" of either ocurring, though "possible", is statistically insignificant. You've got more pressing things to spend your time and energy worrying about, like your cholesterol or driving too fast.

Similarly, the risk of contracting HIV by a monogamous heterosexual who does not use IV drugs, does not have sex with IV drug users, prostitutes, or homosexuals, though "possible", is also statistically insignificant. THAT is the reality, THAT is what the statistics show and this is not open to debate.

To each their own. I'm done responding to you, you have no respect for anyone who doesn't agree with you anyway, and I have better things to do with my time.

I have respect for anyone who disagrees with me intelligently, which thus far seems to be a challenge you're not up to.

 

[miniMUNCH]

As an aside...if you believe you may have come in contact with the AIDS virus, there is a drug currently on the market (to treat people with AIDS) which has been shown effective in an initial Phase 1 animal study in stopping SIDS (the equivalent of AIDS for apes) infection in chimps when adminstered within as a much as 48 hours after exposure. Obviously, get sooner rather than later to boost your chances.

The drug was developed by Gilead Sciences...the trade name is Viread, you can read up on it at www.viread.com.

 

[Deeko]

Man, some of you people are dense.

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
As an aside...if you believe you may have come in contact with the AIDS virus, there is a drug currently on the market (to treat people with AIDS) which has been shown effective in an initial Phase 1 animal study in stopping SIDS (the equivalent of AIDS for apes).

Ahem...

HIV = Human Immunodeficiency Virus
SIV = Simian Immunodeficiency Virus
AIDS = Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
SIDS = Sudden Infant Death Syndrome


In other words, there's no relationship between AIDS and SIDS. Primates get AIDS (not SIDS) via SIV.

 

[stormbv]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Man, some of you people are dense.

and uncompassionate.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: stormbv

Originally posted by: Deeko
Man, some of you people are dense.

and uncompassionate.

and uninformed and totally stubborn

 

[tcsenter]

>As an aside...if you believe you may have come in contact with the AIDS virus, there is a drug currently on the market (to treat people with AIDS) which has been shown effective in an initial Phase 1 animal study in stopping SIDS (the equivalent of AIDS for apes) infection in chimps when adminstered within as a much as 48 hours after exposure. Obviously, get sooner rather than later to boost your chances.<

Ahem....In other words, there's no relationship between AIDS and SIDS. Primates get AIDS (not SIDS) via SIV.

Well he may have been speaking to apes, not people, which would be very strange, but possible.

There are already similar drugs which are offered to health care workers (or police/EMTs/etc) for this purpose by hospitals immediately after HIV exposure, one is gamma globulin (Immunoglobulin), but their efficacy at preventing HIV infection is not proven. There are potentially serious side-effects with chemoprophylaxis, and those potential side effects must be balanced with the degree of exposure risk.

The antiretroviral drugs of choice (changes frequently) are Zidovudine, Lamivudine, and Indinavir. Viread is not a novel drug, but is simply a new nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor of the same class as AZT.

Ok, I edited my post to correct my out-of-date (and wrong) information on chemoprophylaxis.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: dfi

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Meh, I'm not an IV drug user, I do not have sex with men, I do not have sex with prostitutes, I do not have sex with IV drug users, I'm rather monogamous and don't have sex with people I barely know. The last thing I could care about is an AIDs vaccine.

But what a wonderful day it is in America that almost as much money is spent on AIDs research as cancer research so that people can engage in all of the behaviors above without risk. Hurray.

Pretty much my feelings, I only have sex with one woman & both of us have only had one partner (each other).

AIDS is about as high on my list of worries as being kidnapped & anally probed by aliens.

Viper GTS

You guys aren't thinking beyond the foot of your own beds. What about other nations (Africa and India come to mind)? Wouldn't it be nice if we could stem the tide of a disease that is effectively excising the middle of their populations? Or should we just let them die because there are more important domestic issues at hand?

Um, so in Africa and India, people don't get AIDS from sleeping around, but instead they will be just minding their own business, tilling their fields or whatnot, and just mysteriuously come down with the disease? Riiight. It's sad that so many children contract the disease from their mothers who slept around, but wouldn't the disease have been under control by now if all the money that goes towards a cure for this *preventable* disease had gone to education all along? If people were more responsible the disease would be wiped out in a generation.

You're talking about developing nations......what is this "money for education" you're referring to?

Was it that hard? Was it? Okay, here it is:

1) People amass large pile of dough to use towards research to find a vaccine/cure for AIDS.
2) People then take Large Pile of Dough, and instead of using it for research, they give it to someone.
3) Those people go to Africa, India, your developing nation of choice, etc., and tell the people there, "Hey, don't screw around, you'll get AIDs and die!"
4) People realize the error of their ways and stop sleeping around.
5) AIDS goes away completely within 20 years
6) No more AIDS

I'm going to assume you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, since it is quite obvious from your post.

We are talking about people who are so poor that they cant afford a toilet, or shoes, much less pavement. We're talking about countries like Kenya where 90% of the population have at least 1 type of worms infestation, and 60% have at least 2 types of worms. We're talking about countries where people are so poor that infant mortality rates are highest in the world.

"We should just send them money to educate them", you say? Look up World Bank, IMF, and NGOs. Add up the amount of money that has been poured into South Africa since the 1970s. Add up the amount of debt these countries are in. I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think it's somewhere into the billions of US dollars.

So what you're telling me is that after 30 years of economic assistance and advise from first world country organization and world class economists, that you have come up with the solution to end AIDS in subsaharan Africa?

Also, to add, drugs and vaccines are often times developed by PRIVATE companies. So don't worry, your money is not being spent. And since there are international patents protecting pharmaceutical from imitation, they can set the price at any levels they want. So don't worry, people will still be dying of AIDS.

dfi

Hi. I'm affraid you missed the point, that I clarified in later posts, which you seem to have ignored, so I'll rehash it again. I'm not talking about "economic assistance", we do enough of that already, it does nothing. I'm talking about bringing these nations out of what might as well be the stone age, by education. That way they won't have worm infestations or high infant mortality rates, or a population where 30% have AIDS anymore. I didn't say it would be easy or quick.

And I don't care that this vaccine has been developed by private companies. Great! I am not opposed to having a vaccine for AIDS. My point is that we, as a society, are becoming very symptom oriented. We think it's such a swell thing that a vaccine for AIDS might be around the corner, yet these same people who we would vaccinate for AIDS are dying from worms or starving to death or something absolutely ridiculous like that. Once this vaccine is in our grasp and we can dispense it to everyone in the world that we want to, these people will still be starving and dying from the flu. AIDS is just a symptom.

By the way, I know I'm living in a dream world, and that that will never happen in my lifetime. In all liklihood we will continue to be a society of tail-chasers and symptom-treaters for many years. And I'm not bashing Dr. Francis and his dream for an AIDS vaccine, but the short-sightedness of our society.

 

[numark]

<rant>

HIV != AIDS

HIV == virus

AIDS == condition that most often is caused by HIV, but in extremely rare cases shows up in people without HIV

Sorry, had to be said I've had a bit of medical training, so that's why I'm being so picky about it.

</rant>

You may now return to your regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[UberDave]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Meh, I'm not an IV drug user, I do not have sex with men, I do not have sex with prostitutes, I do not have sex with IV drug users, I'm rather monogamous and don't have sex with people I barely know. The last thing I could care about is an AIDs vaccine.

But what a wonderful day it is in America that almost as much money is spent on AIDs research as cancer research in the hope that people will one day again be able to engage in all of the behaviors above without risk. Hurray.

you're an idiot.

AIDs started by a blood transfusion- it stayed within the gay community because of the way it was handled (anal sex = bleeding = transmission). Same went with IV drug users. AIDs spread like wildfire- and somewhat still does. No one cared about AIDs until it started lurking around the "normal" people society. You're never safe from ANYTHING unless you get tested and know for sure you don't have it- along with your partner. 60% or whatever of STRAIGHT males have anal sex with their S.O. (sig other) that's blood right there- along with other ways of transmission.

One mistake can mess up your whole life. People just like you contract AIDs- even without that one mistake. It may not even be of your consent. Cuts on your arms / hands makes you susseptable. (sp) etc.

I don't have sex really anymore because I am scared out of my witts of all the sh!t floating around. I want to settle down with the right girl and know for sure. Call me what you want- but i've been handed most of what life has to offer so far and I really dont want anymore of it.... rough times

peace

 

[tcsenter]

you're an idiot.

I'm speechless! Not really, as you can see, its just that the substance and thought in your post is breath-taking. I don't even know where to begin to address such a marvelous post!

 

[UberDave]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

you're an idiot.

I'm speechless! Not really, as you can see, its just that the substance and thought in your post is breath-taking. I don't even know where to begin to address such a marvelous post!

I edited

edit: you should contact some people from AIDs prevention program. Really interesting people- lives lost to a simple mistake.
What a waste :disgust:

 

[tcsenter]

AIDs started by a blood transfusion- it stayed within the gay community because of the way it was handled (anal sex = bleeding = transmission). Same went with IV drug users. AIDs spread like wildfire- and somewhat still does.

Is that what you believe? Ok, well, no point in bursting your bubble. I'm kinda growing tired of this discussion. You can only do so much of one topic for a while...

 

[TerryMathews]

Just out of curiosity, what happens when HIV mutates and becomes transmitted by touch? People deserve to die because they "touched a i love you"?

What about airborne? "Lock all the fags in a bubble"? Knock knock McFly!!! HIV isn't even just a virus, it's a retrovirus. This thing thrives on mutating. If you understand anything about immunology, HIV should scare the $hit out of you; not for what it does now, but for what it could do basically at any moment.

 

[tcsenter]

This thing thrives on mutating. If you understand anything about immunology, HIV should scare the $hit out of you; not for what it does now, but for what it could do basically at any moment.

Not only do I understand a fair amount of immunology, but retrovirology, also. Yawn.

More than a handful of immunologists AND retrovirologists feel the same way. But I guess they don't know as much as you? Yeah

 

[dfi]

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: dfi

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Meh, I'm not an IV drug user, I do not have sex with men, I do not have sex with prostitutes, I do not have sex with IV drug users, I'm rather monogamous and don't have sex with people I barely know. The last thing I could care about is an AIDs vaccine.

But what a wonderful day it is in America that almost as much money is spent on AIDs research as cancer research so that people can engage in all of the behaviors above without risk. Hurray.

Pretty much my feelings, I only have sex with one woman & both of us have only had one partner (each other).

AIDS is about as high on my list of worries as being kidnapped & anally probed by aliens.

Viper GTS

You guys aren't thinking beyond the foot of your own beds. What about other nations (Africa and India come to mind)? Wouldn't it be nice if we could stem the tide of a disease that is effectively excising the middle of their populations? Or should we just let them die because there are more important domestic issues at hand?

Um, so in Africa and India, people don't get AIDS from sleeping around, but instead they will be just minding their own business, tilling their fields or whatnot, and just mysteriuously come down with the disease? Riiight. It's sad that so many children contract the disease from their mothers who slept around, but wouldn't the disease have been under control by now if all the money that goes towards a cure for this *preventable* disease had gone to education all along? If people were more responsible the disease would be wiped out in a generation.

You're talking about developing nations......what is this "money for education" you're referring to?

Was it that hard? Was it? Okay, here it is:

1) People amass large pile of dough to use towards research to find a vaccine/cure for AIDS.
2) People then take Large Pile of Dough, and instead of using it for research, they give it to someone.
3) Those people go to Africa, India, your developing nation of choice, etc., and tell the people there, "Hey, don't screw around, you'll get AIDs and die!"
4) People realize the error of their ways and stop sleeping around.
5) AIDS goes away completely within 20 years
6) No more AIDS

I'm going to assume you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, since it is quite obvious from your post.

We are talking about people who are so poor that they cant afford a toilet, or shoes, much less pavement. We're talking about countries like Kenya where 90% of the population have at least 1 type of worms infestation, and 60% have at least 2 types of worms. We're talking about countries where people are so poor that infant mortality rates are highest in the world.

"We should just send them money to educate them", you say? Look up World Bank, IMF, and NGOs. Add up the amount of money that has been poured into South Africa since the 1970s. Add up the amount of debt these countries are in. I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think it's somewhere into the billions of US dollars.

So what you're telling me is that after 30 years of economic assistance and advise from first world country organization and world class economists, that you have come up with the solution to end AIDS in subsaharan Africa?

Also, to add, drugs and vaccines are often times developed by PRIVATE companies. So don't worry, your money is not being spent. And since there are international patents protecting pharmaceutical from imitation, they can set the price at any levels they want. So don't worry, people will still be dying of AIDS.

dfi

Hi. I'm affraid you missed the point, that I clarified in later posts, which you seem to have ignored, so I'll rehash it again. I'm not talking about "economic assistance", we do enough of that already, it does nothing. I'm talking about bringing these nations out of what might as well be the stone age, by education. That way they won't have worm infestations or high infant mortality rates, or a population where 30% have AIDS anymore. I didn't say it would be easy or quick.

And I don't care that this vaccine has been developed by private companies. Great! I am not opposed to having a vaccine for AIDS. My point is that we, as a society, are becoming very symptom oriented. We think it's such a swell thing that a vaccine for AIDS might be around the corner, yet these same people who we would vaccinate for AIDS are dying from worms or starving to death or something absolutely ridiculous like that. Once this vaccine is in our grasp and we can dispense it to everyone in the world that we want to, these people will still be starving and dying from the flu. AIDS is just a symptom.

By the way, I know I'm living in a dream world, and that that will never happen in my lifetime. In all liklihood we will continue to be a society of tail-chasers and symptom-treaters for many years. And I'm not bashing Dr. Francis and his dream for an AIDS vaccine, but the short-sightedness of our society.

Firstly, I just read the posts in order and respond whenever I see something. So I probably did miss your later clarification.

Economic assistance is partly going to education. If you ask me, economic assistance IS trying to cure the cause, not the symptoms. The cause of all these problems have to do with poverty, low growth, and high inequality. The problem is that no one can agree on the "correct" course of action, and seemingly no amount of economic assistance has thus far done much.

dfi

 

[Orsorum]

AIDS is just a symptom.

The key to all of this.

The answer to AIDs isn't medicine, it's behavior. Taking responsibility for your actions, acting intelligently and responsibly.

As tscenter said, I don't have promiscuous sex, I don't have sex with other men, I am not an IV drug user. Therefore, my risk from AIDS is almost nil. I'm content with that.

 

[dabuddha]

didn't feel like searching the whole thread but curious, if its a vaccine, how are they going to test it out? do they give the vaccine to someone and purposely try to infect them with HIV? or is there some other way im not thinking about?