So, If everyone with HIV/Aids dies,there would be no more HIV/Aids.
- Thread starter krazykidd
- Start date
Bombing Africa is the answer.Woodsey said:
But seriously in MDCs like North America and Europe It's mostly stupidity. In LDCs like a lot of Africa it's lack of education and lack of ability to even tell if someone has HIV/AIDS. When Africa climbs up the demographic transition ladder it will be less of a problem.
Id like to point out that HIV is very mutagenic. Very. This is why a cure is hard. Its similar to curing flu but yes you are right, different virus altogether and since it works by attacking and changing the way our T cells function dealing with it without ripping our immune system apart is insanely hard work not even factoring the mutation rate. Tis going to be my career to research such things, i hope its possible too.Maze1125 said:
Also bone marrow transplant wouldnt cure aids. Its an affliction of the T cells in the immune response, these sit in the blood, and if a single cell is infected it can infect others. A bone marrow transplant would do little to help the cells still infected and present in the blood. We have had this technology for years, to assume it could cure aids and no one noticed is silly.
You missed 2 VERY obvious options mr OP:
4: Stays latent as a certain % of the population, the rest having taken precaustions, eventually immunity is developed by genetics and the disease is reduced to a small amount of sufferers.
5: Immunity is developed anyway genetically and we wipe it out.
What makes you think its going to take over the entire world, just because its spreading in the less educated countries. There is a cure for aids, but it requires treatment over a long period of time, which many of these countries can't afford/don't know about/can't reach/whatnot. It cannot spread in educated countries, even though cases certainly excises. It is also illegal in most countries to have sex if you have HIV, unless your partner knows about it. And lets be honest, good luck getting a partner with that.
And this is, lets be honest, a very low amount of things the government can do should it be any danger of a real spreadage in any civilized countries. Everything from exportion, contamination zones, criminalize HIV patients and/or force them for treatment are some of the few possibilities. Extermination is, lets be honest, not very ethical, and no countries would ever get behind that. Most likely, the country who went through with this would be condemned from the rest of the world, possibly even attacked. And I don't care what country it is, every country needs to trade.
And this is, lets be honest, a very low amount of things the government can do should it be any danger of a real spreadage in any civilized countries. Everything from exportion, contamination zones, criminalize HIV patients and/or force them for treatment are some of the few possibilities. Extermination is, lets be honest, not very ethical, and no countries would ever get behind that. Most likely, the country who went through with this would be condemned from the rest of the world, possibly even attacked. And I don't care what country it is, every country needs to trade.
This will probably get me a warning or whatever, but you're really the stupid one here aren't you? First of all, HIV and AIDS doesn't exist only within humans. It is around the entire world in any animal capable of carrying it (read: all).krazykidd said:
Second of all, even if if everything with HIV/AIDS died, that's still no guarantee that it would be extinguished. There are tons of diseases which are thought to be long extinct and eliminated but are still capable of returning.
Finally, the people who know of the presence of HIV and AIDS and have the best capabilities of preventing AREN'T THE ONES SPREADING IT. True, a small percentage of people in civilized countries have HIV/AIDS but for the most part, it's confined and those people aren't spreading it. It's the UNCIVILIZED COUNTRIES where the disease is in such high quantity and the people aren't educated that HIV/AIDS is a problem.
Perhaps you should lose some of your own ignorance before accusing other of it.
The point of searching for a cure isn't to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS, it's to help those who are already infected. So yes, we should still be funding research.
why is it every time i go on these threads, someone has created a topic or comment that would actually hint (unintentionally and intentionally both) that we need to massacre or comit genocide on a group of people?
Actually, there's an option D that you didn't mention, Immunity, a small percentage of the human race is already immune to the HIV Virus, and another slightly larger (but still rather small) percentage is highly resistant to it, so eventually all those without the immunity will contract it and die while the rest pass on said resistance and continue to live happily ever after in an aids free world.
Sauce http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198?currentPage=all
Aproximately 1% of those descended from northern europeans are immune to the AIDS Virus... GO VIKINGS, KICKING ASS EVEN NOW!!!
Sauce http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198?currentPage=all
Aproximately 1% of those descended from northern europeans are immune to the AIDS Virus... GO VIKINGS, KICKING ASS EVEN NOW!!!
Actually it does apply to HIV, as far as i know it mutates even faster than the Influenza-virus, which is part of the problem. One person with AIDS can generate may kinds of different viruses through mutation in their own body during the infection, which are all active at the same time. Not to mention that there are already two kinds of virus-classifications, HIV-1 and HIV-2, which differ from each other, although i don't know exactly in what way. The latter one is only limited to Africa and India, the former one is active worldwide.
