90% successful aids vaccine.

[Gyrohelix]

a cure is a cure and any advance is better than none

 

[Agayek]

that is a disgusting position to take, and one without merit.
the human population will stabilize around 9 - 12 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population), and if used correctly earth can support that, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Resources).
what really makes this a ridicoulus position to make is that it betrays the inherent racism of saying that you "need" hiv" when it's mostly centered on africa. if a disease was raging in the western world, would you like an asian to say to himself, "well we best not find a cure for this, those people consume way too much and we have a population problem anyway.
this vaccine(if it works) is to be applauded and defended against the religious nutjobs who will attempt to illegalise it.

If a disease was raging in the Western world, I would say "yes, we need this because our population is exploding". It's not about African, European or whatever else. The fact of the matter is, we have finite resources and an almost exponentially growing population. Stopping it is not in our best interest.

That said, I have no intention of acting with, or in any other form supporting, those who attempt to outlaw stuff like this. I won't hold with that. If people choose to seek a cure, and others choose to take it, that is their right, and I wouldn't dream of infringing on that.

It won't stop me from stating my disagreement though.

 

[ThatLankyBastard]

Wow... this is great!

I knew someone who got Aids from a blood transfusion (way back when... I was just a kid!)

...this is something that can save millions of lives!

...

*can't think of anything interesting to say*

 

[Quigglebert]

(skeptecism) i have one issue, and only one issue with any kind of HIV vaccine, the rate of mutation of HIV itself, its kinda like the common cold in the sense we cant cure it cause every time we make on vaccine its already moved to a new genotype, more or less, now i have read something, dont ask for source cause i cant remember for the life of me where it is, that a lot of virus research is now focusing on specific protiens common to the HIV virus, but im not too sure haow successful that is currently (/skeptecism)

 

[JediMB]

We need some form of population control

Birth control.

We need less moronic parents deciding to get themselves 6 or 7 kids. More adults abstaining from biological offspring in favor of adopting orphans.

 

[Hitokiri_Gensai]

every step taken, is a step in the right direction, thats for sure.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Just you wait.

When a cure is eventually found it's release will be unecessarily delayed by the pharmaceutical companies who makes millions each year by selling HIV-symptom blockers, and people will probably die as a result.

Most likely some supposed "scientist" (funded completely by a pharmaceutical giant of course) is going to drum up some bullshit theory that the cure for aids cause cancer or something like that, just to make the government departments of each respective country who approves new drugs for market sales insecure and postpone the release of it.

Because that's how our "oh so glorious" free market works. If you can't invent the superior product yourself, then slandering or sabotage the work of someone else to insure that you can stay in business is the way to go.

Ain't capitalism grand, folks?

 

[Robert Ewing]

A wonderful cure. I'm glad it came about finally.

And for everyone saying that the world is overcrowding. It isn't. Urban areas are overcrowding, that's a vital difference. The cities, towns, villages are too small, not the Earth.

 

[biggskanz]

There's some pretty shady stuff going on behind all this HIV/AIDS that you'll never hear about unless you look into it for yourself.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL3cAS3YUKM

 

[Dags90]

AIDS denialism, in my Escapist? It's more likely than you'd think.

 

[Fishdog52]

I think you may misunderstand Phase 1 drug testing. They haven't proven this works at all. Phase 1 testing is mostly to see if the drug is safe, what the side effects are, and what if any pharmacological results are noted.

So in 90% of the people they saw that the people didn't get serious side effects and has a notable immune response. We don't know at all if it will be successful at actually helping fight HIV.

It's promising, but its a minor first step.

It's such a small step they aren't even ready for Phase 2 testing. They are planing another Phase 1 test of HIV infected people to see what happens to them.

Pretty much this. I feel bad for the people who contract diseases from unfortunate circumstances, like getting a blood transfusion. But I would never volunteer myself for being injected with the virus later to test the immune response. I just have no luck, and I would be the failed test subject.

 

[Erana]

Look at the big picture, though. We keep 'fixing' what isn't broken. The more possible causes of death that are removed, the longer people live. The more resources they take. Objectively speaking, if they do develop a cure for something that kills millions of people, the results aren't going to be pretty. It also means that less jobs will be available since the people holding those jobs will hold them longer. ('Cause, yanno, global economy isn't doing so great. Unemployment rates are getting up into double digits...fun stuff.)

No.
Nope.

Maybe you can bring up this callous argument when suffering from HIV/AIDS isn't a worse death than starvation.

Allow me to repeat: Death is a part of life. If you don't sacrifice part, then everyone will be worse off for it in the future.

Attempting to 'fix' dying is, honestly, the most irresponsible and selfish act that a human is capable of. Well...maybe not the most. It's about tied with destroying the environment for personal gain.

Wishing people would go and die from HIV/AIDS is downright inhumane. It is too cruel a fate to wish upon most anybody.

Not to mention, this kills indiscriminately of one's physical state prior to contraction.
Great genes? Nope.
Take great care of yourself? Too bad.
You get to die a slow and painful death.

Since I can remember, my mother has worked in dialysis, with the sick and the dying. I have watched people die. I'm reasonably aquainted with death for the average person. And, ya know, if you were to take this position with, say, Diabetes, or heart defects, or something like that, where controlling these diseases costs a fortune, can't ever be completely cured and puts their problems back in the gene pool and such...

Well, you'd still come off as completely heartless, but you'd at least make a lick of sense.

 

[SinisterGehe]

When we cure one version of this virus you know that the other versions are going to go rampart meanwhile? THis is a goood thing indeed, but... People shouldn't let their caution down because of this. HIV virus is evil because it mutates constantly. Accorrding to some document I watched there is 2000 mutations every time it kills the host cell and spreads again. Some of them are successful to function others don't, but the ones that are... They are deadly.

Good thing indeed, but we must not let our caution down..

Actually the HIV virus itself is not deadly, it's the other infections that you can no longer defend against that do you.

Neither is it evil, a virus doesn't even meet the criteria for being alive.

It doesn't grow, it doesn't use energy, and it doesn't reproduce itself.[/quote

Yes thank you I know what a virus is. But my limited English skill prevent me from trying to say the message I am trying to get trough.
What I am saying is that the virus itself mutates everytime the cell it invaded dies and releases the copies of the original virus. Viruses work by invading a host cell and then forcing it to produce the proteins and pieces of RNA that are required for the virus to become what it is.
Virus is not alive, it is dead. It is a zombie, a living dead thing.

I am sorry that you were unable to understand what I was trying to say...

 

[DEAD34345]

-snip-

Maybe, and I really hope so, but I also really doubt it. The big companies that do disease research always focus on the diseases they can make the most money off. As much as I would like it to be so, I hardly think it's a coincidence that the one subtype this cure is for just happens to be the one that affects rich countries, especially when there is such a massive divide in the presence of the subtypes between poor and rich countries.

Also I'm sorry if I sounded really negative, I really am happy that the cure is being made, it's just that the extremely capitalist disease-research industry (if that's even what it would be called) always pisses me off.

Who else would pay for it? Not poor people...I don't want them to die. If there was some way to get this to the rest of the world sure it'd be great. But being realistic it's going to vaccinate those who can afford it an when it's cheap enough to produced en masse then it will be used in poor nations.

That said I doubt this drug will see the light of day. Pharma companies are making so much money off of drug cocktails right now they would never let this thing pass clincal trials or would hold on to the patent for a decade so everyone forgets about it.

Poor people won't benefit from this particular vaccine very much at all, since it only affects HIV subtype-B (the type most common in Europe and America). That's why I was pissed off in the first place, all the money goes to researching the cures that rich people need, while the far, far more common subtypes (A and C) that mainly affect poor people (Africa) are left unresearched.

It's really all an unfortunate by-product of the capitalist world we live in, and I'm not blaming any particular people. It still sickens that it happens like this though.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Eh...not newsworthy. It might hopefully lead to something that is, but it hasn't yet.

 

[Quigglebert]

Just you wait.

When a cure is eventually found it's release will be unecessarily delayed by the pharmaceutical companies who makes millions each year by selling HIV-symptom blockers, and people will probably die as a result.

Most likely some supposed "scientist" (funded completely by a pharmaceutical giant of course) is going to drum up some bullshit theory that the cure for aids cause cancer or something like that, just to make the government departments of each respective country who approves new drugs for market sales insecure and postpone the release of it.

Because that's how our "oh so glorious" free market works. If you can't invent the superior product yourself, then slandering or sabotage the work of someone else to insure that you can stay in business is the way to go.

Ain't capitalism grand, folks?

i'd take cancer over aids any day of the week, cancer is currently treatable and advances are being made in the field, by the time a HIV cure comes through i envision cancer being less an issue

 

[x EvilErmine x]

Since HIV and AIDS doesn't have a pretty fast kill rate, wouldn't something like the flu be a better killer?

Sure, but the flu is already (mostly) controlled. It's far more prevalent and easier to spread than AIDS is, but it's not that dangerous unless you're feeble, very young or in a third world country.

Honestly, the ideal form of population control would be to have a punch-up on the same scale as WWII every 3-4 generations. Fortunately (or not as the case may be), that is rather unlikely to happen since the advent of the Nuclear Age.

At the moment is isn't but then we are way overdue for another proper flu pandemic. the last one doesn't really qualify. Take 'Spanish flu' in 1918 for example which managed to wipe out (using the lowest estimates of the mortality rate) 3% of the worlds population at the time.