NationStates Jolt Archive


Gay Related Immune Deficiency

Philosopy
03-06-2006, 13:50
Professor Andrew Saxon was among that team, and is still working in immunology: "We actually called this Gay Related Immune Deficiency. Thank God that name didn't stick."
It's now twenty five years since the first cases of AIDS began to appear. As the quote above shows, the Doctors who first came across it had absolutely no clue what they were dealing with.
"We thought it was something related to the gay lifestyle - and we had no idea it was a virus."
The five men that this Doctor had met all died within two years. Today, medicine has progressed to the extent that HIV/AIDS is now in many cases just a chronic condition, not a fatal one, and those people who are diagnosed early are often told that there is no reason why they shouldn't live to their full life expectancy.

Despite this, however, there is still no cure for HIV. Perhaps I am being too cynical, but I believe this is in large part due to two reasons; firstly, the fact that it is not airbourne, and so people feel they have no reason to fear it if they take precautions, and secondly, I believe there is still a stigma attached to it as being a 'gay disease'. I remember once, a couple of years ago, talking to a man, who was normally quite an intellegent and caring person, and being amazed by his assertion that "AIDS only happens in gay men because homosexuality is so unnatural the body can't cope with it."

I wonder how long it would take to find a cure if the disease was airbourne, or if it didn't still have the 'homosexual disease' label attached after all this time and so-called social advancements. A year? Two? For now, we'll just have to hope that people are sensible enough to take the proper precautions, and pray that someone discovers the cure for the condition sometime soon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5038750.stm
Tropical Sands
03-06-2006, 13:54
Despite this, however, there is still no cure for HIV. Perhaps I am being too cynical, but I believe this is in large part due to two reasons; firstly, the fact that it is not airbourne, and so people feel they have no reason to fear it if they take precautions, and secondly, I believe there is still a stigma attached to it as being a 'gay disease'. I remember once, a couple of years ago, talking to a man, who was normally quite an intellegent and caring person, and being amazed by his assertion that "AIDS only happens in gay men because homosexuality is so unnatural the body can't cope with it."

Don't forget that drug companies make more treating the symptoms than putting funds into researching cures.
Philosopy
03-06-2006, 14:00
Don't forget that drug companies make more treating the symptoms than putting funds into researching cures.
True. My girlfriends parents are both pharmacists, and from some of the things they've told me I honestly believe that drug companies are some of the most unethical businesses ever to operate. They do all the things that most businesses do; present their products in the most favourable light, try and keep people coming back for their product, dominate a market for maximum profit and so on; the trouble is that they are playing with people's lives when they do this, not just money.

Why is it right that so many people in Africa are dying of this disease because it would put a dent in a multi-national corporations profit sheet to allow the production of some generic drugs?
Dauberline
03-06-2006, 14:01
Count the number of virus-related illnesses the human race has cured. It is a big fat zero. We can cure bacteria-related disease, but we have NO cures for any virus diseases. NONE AT ALL. The best we can hope for with viral infection is to innoculate against it in the first place, or use anti-viral medications, which unfortunately have a tendency to target normal cells. Therefore, finding a cure for ANY viral infection, much less HIV/AIDS will be a MAJOR breakthrough.
Tropical Sands
03-06-2006, 14:04
Count the number of virus-related illnesses the human race has cured. It is a big fat zero. We can cure bacteria-related disease, but we have NO cures for any virus diseases. NONE AT ALL. The best we can hope for with viral infection is to innoculate against it in the first place, or use anti-viral medications, which unfortunately have a tendency to target normal cells. Therefore, finding a cure for ANY viral infection, much less HIV/AIDS will be a MAJOR breakthrough.

Well, in that vein it would be more reasonable to say we should work on a vaccine than a cure.
Philosopy
03-06-2006, 14:05
Count the number of virus-related illnesses the human race has cured. It is a big fat zero. We can cure bacteria-related disease, but we have NO cures for any virus diseases. NONE AT ALL. The best we can hope for with viral infection is to innoculate against it in the first place, or use anti-viral medications, which unfortunately have a tendency to target normal cells. Therefore, finding a cure for ANY viral infection, much less HIV/AIDS will be a MAJOR breakthrough.
I happen to believe that we as a species are capable of doing pretty much anything when we put our minds to it. If we can live to a hundred, travel to the moon, and sit at home talking to people across the globe, do you really think that we couldn't cure a virus?
The Infinite Dunes
03-06-2006, 14:06
I think perhaps you are being too cynical. Like the BBC article said, HIV rapidly mutates, just like influenza, if not more so. With flu, a vaccine is effective for less than a year because of the rate at which the virus mutates. Now couple with the fact that HIV attacks the immune system, then I think it's fair to say it is a very hard to cure disease. Indeed, the article states that 10% of people with HIV have drug resistance to at least one of the anti-retroviral drugs before their drug treatment starts.
Philosopy
03-06-2006, 14:17
I think perhaps you are being too cynical. Like the BBC article said, HIV rapidly mutates, just like influenza, if not more so. With flu, a vaccine is effective for less than a year because of the rate at which the virus mutates. Now couple with the fact that HIV attacks the immune system, then I think it's fair to say it is a very hard to cure disease. Indeed, the article states that 10% of people with HIV have drug resistance to at least one of the anti-retroviral drugs before their drug treatment starts.
It's strange to think that with all our advance technology we can still be beaten by a simple single celled organism. We always think that if the human race is going to go extinct it will be through something big, like a nuclear holocaust or a meteor strike. Perhaps it will be the opposite; a War of the Worlds like ending, beaten back by nature.
Leftist Nationalists
03-06-2006, 14:23
But then again, prevention is better than cure.
Philosopy
03-06-2006, 14:26
But then again, prevention is better than cure.
Perhaps true, but accidents are always going to happen. I doubt that many infected people caught it deliberately. And even if it is prevented, a cure would be nice.
Bottle
03-06-2006, 14:28
Despite this, however, there is still no cure for HIV. Perhaps I am being too cynical, but I believe this is in large part due to two reasons; firstly, the fact that it is not airbourne, and so people feel they have no reason to fear it if they take precautions, and secondly, I believe there is still a stigma attached to it as being a 'gay disease'. I remember once, a couple of years ago, talking to a man, who was normally quite an intellegent and caring person, and being amazed by his assertion that "AIDS only happens in gay men because homosexuality is so unnatural the body can't cope with it."

I completely agree that our research would be at least a decade further along but for the sexual hangups surrounding the topic. Yet another reason why Ronald Reagan deserves to go down in history as one of the worst presidents to ever dishonor the office. He alone could have saved millions of lives, but he was too much of a bigotted coward to even utter the word "AIDS" until seven years into the epidemic. Also a good reason to put the Catholic Church on trial for crimes against humanity, since they are--to this day--engaged in an active campaign of lies that helps to spread AIDS throughout the third world, simply because they feel their sexual hangups are more valuable than human life.

With all that said, however, curing AIDS presents a huge challenge simply because of what the disease is and how it functions. It's a real bitch of a virus, particularly due to the latency period. People can contract it and not know for YEARS. You may have even seen that PSA that's on American TV right now, which lets us know that 1/4 Americans with HIV don't even know they have it...and, thus, these people are not allerting their partners to their HIV status.

AIDS would be a scary disease no matter what. The fact that there are so many people who put their petty hatreds above stopping this epidemic only serves to make a scary disease even more bloody terrifying.
Sskiss
03-06-2006, 14:33
Don't forget that drug companies make more treating the symptoms than putting funds into researching cures.

True. Or putting money into the preventative aspect of medicine which in my opinion is what true medicine should be all about!

Remember the old saying "An once of prevention is worth a ton of cure"
Bottle
03-06-2006, 14:34
But then again, prevention is better than cure.
Not always. In fact, not most of the time. The vast majority of the time, humans don't believe it is best to do everything in our power to prevent negative outcomes. We do many things to prevent such out comes, sure, but we certainly see a limit to how valuable prevention is.

Take bike-riding. We wear helmets, maybe even pads, and we try to ride safely. But if we really wanted to prevent bike-riding accidents, there's a bloody simple way to do it: ban bikes. There's some real prevention for you. The thing is, we recognize that prevention is only worth it up to a point, and after that it's the cure or the treatment that is more valuable. We generally agree that it's better to give up some prevention and take the risk of injury, particularly since we know we have a "cure" for the majority of bike-riding injuries.

Diseases are the same way. Only the most ignorant, self-righteous, and irrational rubes actually think that the 100% prevention message is EVER going to work. These are the morons who think that abstinance-only messages are effective, even as their programs are increasing the rates of STD infection. These are the people who actually think it's realistic to just tell people to quit having sex; this is no more realistic than giving a kid a new bike, and then telling him he's never ever to touch it because he might fall off.
Thanosara
03-06-2006, 14:35
I happen to believe that we as a species are capable of doing pretty much anything when we put our minds to it. If we can live to a hundred, travel to the moon, and sit at home talking to people across the globe, do you really think that we couldn't cure a virus?

Yep.

In fact, I doubt chemistry, radiation, or any other technology currently used by modern medicine will ever provide a method for killing a virus without killing healthy cells.
Philosopy
03-06-2006, 14:36
Also a good reason to put the Catholic Church on trial for crimes against humanity, since they are--to this day--engaged in an active campaign of lies that helps to spread AIDS throughout the third world, simply because they feel their sexual hangups are more valuable than human life.
The Catholic Church is slowly starting to change its stance, and in their defence it is hard to pin the blame on them. You may not agree with their 'sexual hangups', but if people followed their teaching they would not be at such a risk. In other words, if they followed the teaching of the Church to not engage in promiscuous sex then they reduce the risk of catching the disease massively.

You may say that people have a right to this promiscuity, but I find the hypocracy of those who ignore the Church on this topic and then blame the Church for not letting them wear a condom quite hard to swallow. If you're going to follow the teaching, be faithful to one partner. If you're not, then wear a condom. Don't do one half and blame the Church for the other.
Bottle
03-06-2006, 14:49
The Catholic Church is slowly starting to change its stance, and in their defence it is hard to pin the blame on them.

How so? They have flat out admitted that they instruct their missionaries to tell lies about condoms, so that people will not use the condoms. They deliberately lie, and their lies cost lives. Pretty simple.


You may not agree with their 'sexual hangups', but if people followed their teaching they would not be at such a risk. In other words, if they followed the teaching of the Church to not engage in promiscuous sex then they reduce the risk of catching the disease massively.

100% wrong. The fastest growing population of new AIDS patients is married women who are faithful to their husbands. Following the Church's teachings is what gets them killed, because the Church tells their HIV-positive husbands that it's a sin to use condoms with their (faithful!) wives.


You may say that people have a right to this promiscuity, but I find the hypocracy of those who ignore the Church on this topic and then blame the Church for not letting them wear a condom quite hard to swallow. If you're going to follow the teaching, be faithful to one partner. If you're not, then wear a condom. Don't do one half and blame the Church for the other.
Again with the ignorance. Promiscuity doesn't cause AIDS.

The Church stops people from using condoms by perpetuating lies. They block responsible reproductive health groups from getting out the correct information. They choose to put their message above the health and safety of the communities they claim to serve.

The Church also helps to support the social systems which keep women disenfranchised, so that women continue to have no say in their sex lives. Women are sold as property, and do not have the luxury of "choosing to be faithful" or "choosing to abstain from sex." If a man wants sex from his "bride," he takes it. If he wants sex from some other woman, he takes it, and then the community marries her off to her rapist. She has no power, and no choice to get him to use a condom. These are practices that are 100% consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, and they actively support these social structures.
Philosopy
03-06-2006, 14:56
100% wrong. The fastest growing population of new AIDS patients is married women who are faithful to their husbands. Following the Church's teachings is what gets them killed, because the Church tells their HIV-positive husbands that it's a sin to use condoms with their wives.
I don't think the policy of the Church is the right one, and I am well aware of the reasons why it is not. I am not claiming it is right; simply pointing out that the way people attempt to use the Church as a scapegoat is unfair. It is an easy target, but it is not an accurate target.

Take South Africa. Here, more than 30% of the population is HIV positive, but only 7.1% are Roman Catholic. It doesn't take a maths whizz to work out that it's unfair to pin the blame solely on the Vatican.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51496.htm
Again with the ignorance. Promiscuity doesn't cause AIDS.
Oh? How is it transmitted, then? Magical HIV fairies?

The Church stops people from using condoms by perpetuating lies. They block responsible reproductive health groups from getting out the correct information. They choose to put their message above the health and safety of the communities they claim to serve.
As I have said above, the Church is not as dominant as you would have us believe. If it was a 100% Catholic, authoritarian Government you might have a point; when Catholics make up less than 10% of the population, you do not.
The Infinite Dunes
03-06-2006, 17:44
I don't think the policy of the Church is the right one, and I am well aware of the reasons why it is not. I am not claiming it is right; simply pointing out that the way people attempt to use the Church as a scapegoat is unfair. It is an easy target, but it is not an accurate target.

Take South Africa. Here, more than 30% of the population is HIV positive, but only 7.1% are Roman Catholic. It doesn't take a maths whizz to work out that it's unfair to pin the blame solely on the Vatican.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51496.htm

Oh? How is it transmitted, then? Magical HIV fairies?Right... Promiscuity itself doesn't cause you to catch HIV. You could have unprotected sex with 1000 people who are not HIV positive and you would not get infected. Unprotected promiscious sex in an population where there is a large portion of the population that do not know they are HIV+ then that would increase your chance of infection, but not guarentee it as you seem to suggest.

In short, HIV is transmited by it entering your bloodstream, this can be through unscreened blood tranfusions, unsterilised needle sharing or unprotected sex. So reducing any part of these will reduce your chance of getting AIDS. For example, you could stop sharing needles or sterilise the needles before sharing.
As I have said above, the Church is not as dominant as you would have us believe. If it was a 100% Catholic, authoritarian Government you might have a point; when Catholics make up less than 10% of the population, you do not.SA is 80% christian, and the majority of which are non-denominational. Are you suggesting that the Papacy has NO influence at all over these people?

Also, the Papacy's actions in Africa have not just been limited to Roman Catholics. So John Paul's claims that there was scientific proof that condoms did not prevent the tranmission of HIV because of the little holes that in the latex that allowed the virus to pass were extremely damaging. Maybe you should read over that last sentence again. This was an actual 'scientific' claim made by the Vatican in 2003. So... yeah...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html
Keruvalia
03-06-2006, 18:13
In a rare moment of not-so-peaceful attitude, anyone who still thinks AIDS/HIV is a Gay disease, deserves getting it.
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 18:23
It's strange to think that with all our advance technology we can still be beaten by a simple single celled organism. We always think that if the human race is going to go extinct it will be through something big, like a nuclear holocaust or a meteor strike. Perhaps it will be the opposite; a War of the Worlds like ending, beaten back by nature.

You think far too much of humanity. We're no better than any other thing not extinct on this planet.

And between you and me, I wouldn't go around insulting the guy. He's a killer, I hear.
CthulhuFhtagn
03-06-2006, 20:53
Despite this, however, there is still no cure for HIV. Perhaps I am being too cynical, but I believe this is in large part due to two reasons; firstly, the fact that it is not airbourne, and so people feel they have no reason to fear it if they take precautions, and secondly, I believe there is still a stigma attached to it as being a 'gay disease'.
Or, you know, it could be that A) It is impossible to cure viral diseases, prevent, yes, survive, possibly, and B) HIV mutates far too rapidly for a vaccine to ever be developed against it. Influenza requires a new vaccine every year, and HIV mutates at thousands of times the speed of influenza.
Terrorist Cakes
03-06-2006, 20:57
There's no cure because no one gives a crap anymore. Bush was going to help the AIDS cause, but a couple days later, he changed his mind. The death of a few thousand Americans became more pressing than the lives of a few million people around the world.
Fass
03-06-2006, 21:01
There's no cure because no one gives a crap anymore. Bush was going to help the AIDS cause, but a couple days later, he changed his mind. The death of a few thousand Americans became more pressing than the lives of a few million people around the world.

He wasn't going to help all along. The money never would have seen efficient campaigns, instead they would have just gone to the failure that is "abstinence only."
Angry Fruit Salad
03-06-2006, 21:02
Right... Promiscuity itself doesn't cause you to catch HIV. You could have unprotected sex with 1000 people who are not HIV positive and you would not get infected. Unprotected promiscious sex in an population where there is a large portion of the population that do not know they are HIV+ then that would increase your chance of infection, but not guarentee it as you seem to suggest.

In short, HIV is transmited by it entering your bloodstream, this can be through unscreened blood tranfusions, unsterilised needle sharing or unprotected sex. So reducing any part of these will reduce your chance of getting AIDS. For example, you could stop sharing needles or sterilise the needles before sharing.
SA is 80% christian, and the majority of which are non-denominational. Are you suggesting that the Papacy has NO influence at all over these people?

Also, the Papacy's actions in Africa have not just been limited to Roman Catholics. So John Paul's claims that there was scientific proof that condoms did not prevent the tranmission of HIV because of the little holes that in the latex that allowed the virus to pass were extremely damaging. Maybe you should read over that last sentence again. This was an actual 'scientific' claim made by the Vatican in 2003. So... yeah...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

Don't forget the cases where a woman ends up with HIV (perhaps she was a nurse treating an infected patient, and there was a slipup -- that actually happens more often than one would think), her husband gets her pregnant, and HIV is passed on to the child.
The Badlands of Paya
03-06-2006, 21:08
i think these days people associate it more with africa and black people than homosexuality
Seathorn
03-06-2006, 21:11
Don't forget the cases where a woman ends up with HIV (perhaps she was a nurse treating an infected patient, and there was a slipup -- that actually happens more often than one would think), her husband gets her pregnant, and HIV is passed on to the child.

Don't forget the husband, who now also has HIV.
The Black Forrest
03-06-2006, 21:36
Don't forget that drug companies make more treating the symptoms than putting funds into researching cures.

Well yes. You make a great deal more money when you give them drugs to keep them alive vs giving them a cure.
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 21:45
Well yes. You make a great deal more money when you give them drugs to keep them alive vs giving them a cure.

Assuming we can somehow cure viral infections now, I'd do the common cold first.
Reved
03-06-2006, 21:52
Assuming we can somehow cure viral infections now, I'd do the common cold first.

Amusingly, that's one of the most difficult, given the massive number of viruses than can cause it.
Angry Fruit Salad
03-06-2006, 21:54
Don't forget the husband, who now also has HIV.


That too -- figured that was assumed,though. I just haven't seen anyone in this thread (yet) take into account those who are BORN with the virus.
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 21:58
Amusingly, that's one of the most difficult, given the massive number of viruses than can cause it.

Not to mention it's the one what would get me most famous. But of course, in order to blame corporations, we're assuming we can cure the virus type of things.
Boofheads
03-06-2006, 22:01
Also a good reason to put the Catholic Church on trial for crimes against humanity, since they are--to this day--engaged in an active campaign of lies that helps to spread AIDS throughout the third world, simply because they feel their sexual hangups are more valuable than human life.


1. If people followed the Catholic Church's teaching on sexuality, there would be no AIDS epidemic.

2. If people get AIDs while doing something against Church teaching, how is it the Church's fault?

3. If people choose to go against Church teaching on having sex outside of marriage, there's no reason they can't also go against the Church teaching and use condoms. Contraceptives are typically plentiful in the third world because first world countries ship so many to them. There is no Vatican Swat team that swoops in and steals condoms.

4. Show some good evidence of this campaign of lies you speak of. If there is a whole campaign, it shouldn't be difficult to find. One would think such a campaign would be all over the news.
Droskianishk
03-06-2006, 22:03
The Catholic Church is slowly starting to change its stance, and in their defence it is hard to pin the blame on them. You may not agree with their 'sexual hangups', but if people followed their teaching they would not be at such a risk. In other words, if they followed the teaching of the Church to not engage in promiscuous sex then they reduce the risk of catching the disease massively.

You may say that people have a right to this promiscuity, but I find the hypocracy of those who ignore the Church on this topic and then blame the Church for not letting them wear a condom quite hard to swallow. If you're going to follow the teaching, be faithful to one partner. If you're not, then wear a condom. Don't do one half and blame the Church for the other.

/clap
Allemonde
03-06-2006, 22:12
Not to mention it's the one what would get me most famous. But of course, in order to blame corporations, we're assuming we can cure the virus type of things.

I was watching the news the other day and they said their is a new test that can pinpoint the virus and they can develop a pesonalized treatment. Hopefully with all this new technology we can finally irradicate AIDS but we need to get the greedmongers and the religous wrong(right) out of our governments. Only then will we find a cure.

Has anyone ever considered using Nanos to fight viruses? Also anyone who still thinks AIDS is a gay disease is a complete idiot.

GAY PRIDE 2006

Make AIDS History: http://www.globaltreatmentaccess.org/
Droskianishk
03-06-2006, 22:13
Right... Promiscuity itself doesn't cause you to catch HIV. You could have unprotected sex with 1000 people who are not HIV positive and you would not get infected. Unprotected promiscious sex in an population where there is a large portion of the population that do not know they are HIV+ then that would increase your chance of infection, but not guarentee it as you seem to suggest.

In short, HIV is transmited by it entering your bloodstream, this can be through unscreened blood tranfusions, unsterilised needle sharing or unprotected sex. So reducing any part of these will reduce your chance of getting AIDS. For example, you could stop sharing needles or sterilise the needles before sharing.
SA is 80% christian, and the majority of which are non-denominational. Are you suggesting that the Papacy has NO influence at all over these people?

Also, the Papacy's actions in Africa have not just been limited to Roman Catholics. So John Paul's claims that there was scientific proof that condoms did not prevent the tranmission of HIV because of the little holes that in the latex that allowed the virus to pass were extremely damaging. Maybe you should read over that last sentence again. This was an actual 'scientific' claim made by the Vatican in 2003. So... yeah...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html


Firstly if your not having promiscious sex (especially if your a homosexual male having promiscious sex w/other homosexual men), the chances of you catching HIV/AIDS is greatly reduced (not completely, but still greatly reduced), as well as other STD's. Of course you could catch it some other way but the number of people that catch it in those ways are very very slim. Secondly how did the disease come to be in the first place? Promiscious sex between homosexual men, so again if your having promiscious sex you are putting yourself in harms way.

If your goin to play the blame game w/the church lets look at the gay community. Some members of the homosexual elite ("intellectuals") have encouraged homosexual males that know they have HIV/AIDS to donate blood to blood banks, that is far worse than anything the Church has done (granted its on a smaller scale but it is still far worse). By teaching abstinence and then dedication to one partner the Church is doing far better than "have sex w/everyone and anyone and to hell w/the consiquences), and btw condoms do have small holes in them and ARE NOT 100% EFFECTIVE, even the company's that produce condoms warn that they cannot garauntee protection against STD's including HIV/AID's.

You also assume that if people are having sex w/out condoms their going to have children (even HIV positive or AIDS infected adults), but thats not true there is a little thing called NFP (natural family planning) which does work, and will keep those parents from having children, they can adopt.
Teh_pantless_hero
03-06-2006, 22:13
Count the number of virus-related illnesses the human race has cured. It is a big fat zero. We can cure bacteria-related disease, but we have NO cures for any virus diseases. NONE AT ALL. The best we can hope for with viral infection is to innoculate against it in the first place, or use anti-viral medications, which unfortunately have a tendency to target normal cells. Therefore, finding a cure for ANY viral infection, much less HIV/AIDS will be a MAJOR breakthrough.
Polio, STHPV, measels, mumps.
Unless working vaccines don't count as a cure.
CthulhuFhtagn
03-06-2006, 22:15
I was watching the news the other day and they said their is a new test that can pinpoint the virus and they can develop a pesonalized treatment. Hopefully with all this new technology we can finally irradicate AIDS but we need to get the greedmongers and the religous wrong(right) out of our governments. Only then will we find a cure.

That, of course, is utter bullshit. First, it is impossible to cure viruses in the first place. Second, HIV mutates far faster than any other virus out there, making it even more difficult to cure than anything else. It is physically impossible to create a cure or a vaccine for HIV. It cannot be done.
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 22:15
I was watching the news the other day and they said their is a new test that can pinpoint the virus and they can develop a pesonalized treatment. Hopefully with all this new technology we can finally irradicate AIDS but we need to get the greedmongers and the religous wrong(right) out of our governments. Only then will we find a cure.

Has anyone ever considered using Nanos to fight viruses? Also anyone who still thinks AIDS is a gay disease is a complete idiot.

GAY PRIDE 2006

1) By the time the develop the treatment, the virus will be different
2) Thus, no it won't eradicate AIDS.
3) So it's probably not really in the hands of "greedmongers and the religous wrong".
4) Has anyone even considered learning about "nanos", what they are and what they can do before suggesting we use them for something?
CthulhuFhtagn
03-06-2006, 22:16
Polio, HPV, measels, mumps.
Vaccines are preventatives, not cures. Also, all of those are relatively slow mutating viri.
Droskianishk
03-06-2006, 22:16
I was watching the news the other day and they said their is a new test that can pinpoint the virus and they can develop a pesonalized treatment. Hopefully with all this new technology we can finally irradicate AIDS but we need to get the greedmongers and the religous wrong(right) out of our governments. Only then will we find a cure.

Has anyone ever considered using Nanos to fight viruses? Also anyone who still thinks AIDS is a gay disease is a complete idiot.

GAY PRIDE 2006

You can be gay and have pride, but its a known fact that promiscious sex between homosexual men created HIV/AIDS and has helped spread it faster than anything else (thats not to say its limited to the gay community). We need to get the homosexual wrong (extremely left elite) out of our governments, only then will we begin to even confront what created AIDs, then we will find a way to stop it. (Nano technology is still extremely expensive and has potential for disaster)
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 22:16
Polio, HPV, measels, mumps.

So...You're saying we can vaccinate against virii that don't mutate very quickly? Thank you for telling us what we know and has no bearing on what we do about HIV.
Teh_pantless_hero
03-06-2006, 22:17
Vaccines are cures, not preventatives. Also, all of those are relatively slow mutating viri.
Pah I say.

You people and your silly technicalities.
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 22:17
Vaccines are cures, not preventatives.

Scratch that, reverse it?
CthulhuFhtagn
03-06-2006, 22:18
Scratch that, reverse it?
Yeah, just fixed it.
Droskianishk
03-06-2006, 22:18
The only time-tested proven way to end AIDS (or at least keep it from spreading) is quarantine. Seems extreme to todays community, but it has worked in the past.
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 22:20
The only time-tested proven way to end AIDS (or at least keep it from spreading) is quarantine. Seems extreme to todays community, but it has worked in the past.

What past?
Amaturus
03-06-2006, 22:22
I'm not sure if anyone else has brought this up, but the gay stigma is more pervasive than some would think. For example, my state (as well as many others in the Union) does not allow men, who have had sex with men even once, to give blood. The argument that gay men are more likely to have STIs is fallacious, because statistically following this logic blacks are more likely to have STIs too. The bias is still very blatant.
Allemonde
03-06-2006, 22:22
1) By the time the develop the treatment, the virus will be different
2) Thus, no it won't eradicate AIDS.
3) So it's probably not really in the hands of "greedmongers and the religous wrong".
4) Has anyone even considered learning about "nanos", what they are and what they can do before suggesting we use them for something?

1.Nobody thought you could ever cure bacteria.
2.AIDS is a fear disease meaning it's being used to cause fear and panic among people. There is probaly already a cure just that the elite dosen't wants to use it cause it would mean the begining of the end of the fear based culture were in.
3. Development of science right now is in a stand still compared from the 1700's - 1970's.
4. Only basic knowledge but I belive nanos are small computers as small as a cell.
Rangerville
03-06-2006, 22:23
In many countries, including here in Canada, gay men aren't even allowed to donate blood, neither are HIV positive people. Not to mention the fact that blood is now screened for HIV and Hepatitis before it's used. I don't think that anyone should be telling HIV positive people to go out and donate blood, but if they do, it's not likely to get very far. Their blood would be discarded as soon as the HIV was detected. IV drug users aren't allowed to donate either.

As for finding cures for viruses, the cold is probably the last one we need to find a cure for. If they find a way to cure viruses, i want them to focus first on curing HIV, viral meningitis, viral pneumonia, Hepatitis, HPV (some forms of which can lead to cervical cancer), etc. People don't die from the common cold, it's annoying, not life threatening. The only people colds seriously threaten are those who have weakened immune systems due to other illnesses, the cold itself doesn't kill anyone. If the cold happens to be the first virus they find a cure for, so be it, but i would rather the focus be elsewhere.
Droskianishk
03-06-2006, 22:24
What past?


Not w/AIDS other disease's... Polio and the like.
Seathorn
03-06-2006, 22:26
1.Nobody thought you could ever cure bacteria.
2.AIDS is a fear disease meaning it's being used to cause fear and panic among people. There is probaly already a cure just that nobody wants to use it cause it would mean the end of the fear based culture were in.
3. Development of science right now is in a stand still compared from the 1700's - 1970's.
4. Only basic knowledge but I belive nanos are small computers as small as a cell.

1. You fail to address the issue, which is that vira cannot be cured yet.

2. There is probably not a cure, as we'd have a cure for the common cold then.

3. Depends which department of science.

4. Nano means 10^-9. You'd have a very hard time making a computer out of it. Nanotechnology focuses on creating extraordinarily small details, which is then used to create more powerful computers. They cannot create computers the size of a nanometer.
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 22:27
1.Nobody thought you could ever cure bacteria.
2.AIDS is a fear disease meaning it's being used to cause fear and panic among people. There is probaly already a cure just that nobody wants to use it cause it would mean the end of the fear based culture were in.
3. Development of science right now is in a stand still compared from the 1700's - 1970's.
4. Only basic knowledge but I belive nanos are small computers as small as a cell.

1) And why was that?
2) No, seriously. You don't just cure virii, and who the hell keeps a cure secret? You'd be famous. Who are we supposed to be fearing because of AIDS anyways? This is just a conspiracy theory for the sake of having a theory.
3) Someone's not paying much attention to...umm...Anything?
4) They have the nano-circuit. That's it so far. You want a swarm of nano-robots that can pull autonomous seek-and-destroy missions. You watch too many movies.
Droskianishk
03-06-2006, 22:27
I'm not sure if anyone else has brought this up, but the gay stigma is more pervasive than some would think. For example, my state (as well as many others in the Union) does not allow men, who have had sex with men even once, to give blood. The argument that gay men are more likely to have STIs is fallacious, because statistically following this logic blacks are more likely to have STIs too. The bias is still very blatant.


No the argument is (correctly) that unprotected sex between homosexual men creates AIDS.... and because HIV/AIDS is dormant, in America you have to wait I think its a month or so before you can give blood otherwise you could (albeit unknowingly in MOST cases) pass it on to another person. Bias is not always bad, you have to pick between good bias and bad bias. For instance is it better to be bias against a 4 time offending child molester, by not letting him babysit a 10-12 year old kid? Of course you wouldn't, a good bias in motion.
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 22:29
4. Nano means 10^-9. You'd have a very hard time making a computer out of it. Nanotechnology focuses on creating extraordinarily small details, which is then used to create more powerful computers. They cannot create computers the size of a nanometer.

Technically, it's just anything commonly measured in nanometers, it needn't be a single nanometer. Although any computer made of them would go into micrometers...
Allemonde
03-06-2006, 22:30
You can be gay and have pride, but its a known fact that promiscious sex between homosexual men created HIV/AIDS and has helped spread it faster than anything else (thats not to say its limited to the gay community). We need to get the homosexual wrong (extremely left elite) out of our governments, only then will we begin to even confront what created AIDs, then we will find a way to stop it. (Nano technology is still extremely expensive and has potential for disaster)

Get your brain out of the 1970's. Gays don't go around having promisicous sex with hundreds of men. Hell during the 70's and 80's their was plenty of straight people having more sex. This is 2006 AIDS isn't a "Gay" disease it's a disease that can infect anyone.

Also: the person who advocates quarrantines: That's called a Concentration Camp!!!!
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 22:31
No the argument is (correctly) that unprotected sex between homosexual men creates AIDS.... and because HIV/AIDS is dormant, in America you have to wait I think its a month or so before you can give blood otherwise you could (albeit unknowingly in MOST cases) pass it on to another person. Bias is not always bad, you have to pick between good bias and bad bias. For instance is it better to be bias against a 4 time offending child molester, by not letting him babysit a 10-12 year old kid? Of course you wouldn't, a good bias in motion.

The only thing creating AIDS is the HIV, which is created by them CD4 cells of an infected person. Sex itself creates nothing. Sex between any two (or more) people.
CSW
03-06-2006, 22:34
1. You fail to address the issue, which is that vira cannot be cured yet.
Not entirely true. You can't kill something that isn't alive, but we do have drugs that interfere with the reproduction of the virus, which is the same as a cure. The only trouble is that because you can't kill a virus and they have a nasty habit of lying latent forever (hello herpes) you have to keep on taking the drug that prevents the reproduction of the virus or you've got a relapse waiting to happen.
Droskianishk
03-06-2006, 22:34
Get your brain out of the 70's. Gays don't go around having promisicous sex with hundres of men. Hell during the 70's and 80's their was plenty of straight people having more sex. This is 2006 AIDS isn't a "Gay" disease it's a disease that can infect anyone.

Also: the person who advocates quarrantines: That's called a Concentration Camp!!!!


No its not, a quarantine is and has always been a perfectly reasonable way to save a population of people. For example lets say the Plague broke out again (it still exists and that is a possibility), would you rather quarantine the infected and save the bulk of humanity, or "protect" them and let them kill millions of innocent people.

To your first point, many gays don't go around having promisicous sex w/hundreds of partners, but they did in the 60's and 70's WHEN AIDS MYSTERIOUSLY APPEARED!! Many still do, albeit not all. And as I said earlier AID's can infect everyone but it only "appears" in homosexual men... coincidence? I think not. (read The Death of Right and Wrong by Tammy Bruce, a lesbian and former president of WOW Los Angeles.)
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 22:36
you have to keep on taking the drug that prevents the reproduction of the virus or you've got a relapse waiting to happen.

Which means it's not the same as a cure. It's a repression, maybe. We aren't about to cure anything of the sort, and no one is hiding it from you.
CthulhuFhtagn
03-06-2006, 22:36
Not entirely true. You can't kill something that isn't alive, but we do have drugs that interfere with the reproduction of the virus, which is the same as a cure. The only trouble is that because you can't kill a virus and they have a nasty habit of lying latent forever (hello herpes) you have to keep on taking the drug that prevents the reproduction of the virus or you've got a relapse waiting to happen.
Unfortunately, the drugs don't work well on HIV. It mutates far too quickly. Even the most potent cocktails only buy a few years of time.
Rangerville
03-06-2006, 22:36
I actually read statistics once that said the AIDS rate among gay men has been steadily declining since the early years of the disease, it was rising among other groups. Besides, it's only in this part of the world that it was once a predominantly gay disease, in the rest of the world it has always been predominantly found in the heterosexual community.

Look, it's a fact that if you have more partners or have unprotected sex that does up your chance of getting STI's, but that doesn't mean it's the only way to get them. You can have sex once, either the first time ever or the first time with a new partner, and become infected. You can have sex in a committed relationship and become infected. Condoms aren't fool proof, especially if you don't use them correctly, and lots of people don't. Most STI's don't have symptoms, at least not in the early stages and not in the majority of people. Someone could have one and not even know it. Doctors don't test for many unless you specifically ask them to, and most people figure they have no reason to unless a former partner tells them they should. I personally think anyone who is sexually active should get tested regularly.
CthulhuFhtagn
03-06-2006, 22:40
To your first point, many gays don't go around having promisicous sex w/hundreds of partners, but they did in the 60's and 70's WHEN AIDS MYSTERIOUSLY APPEARED!! Many still do, albeit not all. And as I said earlier AID's can infect everyone but it only "appears" in homosexual men... coincidence? I think not. (read The Death of Right and Wrong by Tammy Bruce, a lesbian and former president of WOW Los Angeles.)
The appearence of HIV was in no means mysterious. It coincided with the beginning of the boom in the bushmeat trade. HIV evolved from SIV that was transmitted to humans via accidental blood-blood contact with an infected chimpanzee.
Droskianishk
03-06-2006, 22:42
The appearence of HIV was in no means mysterious. It coincided with the beginning of the boom in the bushmeat trade. HIV evolved from SIV that was transmitted to humans via accidental blood-blood contact with an infected chimpanzee.


Oh yes the blood-blood contact ... I've heard of that and the scientific medical community (without an agenda that is) has flatly denounced that myth.
Ifreann
03-06-2006, 22:42
Get your brain out of the 1970's. Gays don't go around having promisicous sex with hundreds of men. Hell during the 70's and 80's their was plenty of straight people having more sex. This is 2006 AIDS isn't a "Gay" disease it's a disease that can infect anyone.

Also: the person who advocates quarrantines: That's called a Concentration Camp!!!!
A quarantine is not a concentration camp. Quarantines are almost the oppossite. The better a quarantine is the less people that get infected with whatever disease. The better a concentration camp the more people get killed.
CthulhuFhtagn
03-06-2006, 22:46
Oh yes the blood-blood contact ... I've heard of that and the scientific medical community (without an agenda that is) has flatly denounced that myth.
Question. On what planet does "accepting' mean "denouncing"?
Rangerville
03-06-2006, 22:46
It is easier for a man to give HIV to a woman than it is for a woman to give it to a man, i'm assuming because the point of entry is larger, but straight men still can contract it through sex. Not to mention the countless drug users who contract it through contaminated needles. To say the disease only infects gay men is ludicrous, that means you are ignoring all the women, children, and straight men who have it.
Rangerville
03-06-2006, 22:49
I spent seven years working and volunteering in the public health sector, and the nurses and other health professionals i worked with did everything but denounce it, I don't know what scientific community you have been hearing things from. The CDC found out it could be contracted through blood over a decade ago, i have never heard any doctor or scientist dispute that fact.

Your opinions are so obviously based on the fact that you hate gay people and you are actually criticising some members of the medical community for having an agenda? Hello kettle, this is the pot, you're black.
Drunk commies deleted
03-06-2006, 22:52
Count the number of virus-related illnesses the human race has cured. It is a big fat zero. We can cure bacteria-related disease, but we have NO cures for any virus diseases. NONE AT ALL. The best we can hope for with viral infection is to innoculate against it in the first place, or use anti-viral medications, which unfortunately have a tendency to target normal cells. Therefore, finding a cure for ANY viral infection, much less HIV/AIDS will be a MAJOR breakthrough.
Smallpox was eradicated. If we could find a vaccine we could probably eradicate AIDS within a couple of generations.
CthulhuFhtagn
03-06-2006, 22:54
Smallpox was eradicated. If we could find a vaccine we could probably eradicate AIDS within a couple of generations.
Smallpox also mutated very slowly.

Now, Influenza mutates so quickly that a new vaccine is needed every year. HIV mutates thousands of times faster than influenza. Do the math. You'd need multiple vaccines per day to do what you propose.
Rangerville
03-06-2006, 22:55
Polio is getting close to being eradicated too, there are only about 20 countries where it still exists. They are doing a mass immunization program right now, vaccinating all the kids. They say it can't survive outside a child's body, so once every child is vaccinated, it will really be gone. Some people say this could be done by 2010.
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 22:56
Smallpox was eradicated. If we could find a vaccine we could probably eradicate AIDS within a couple of generations.

...Actually, you know what, CF already got this one, nevermind.
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 22:57
Polio is getting close to being eradicated too, there are only about 20 countries where it still exists. They are doing a mass immunization program right now, vaccinating all the kids. They say it can't survive outside a child's body, so once every child is vaccinated, it will really be gone. Some people say this could be done by 2010.
.
So...You're saying we can vaccinate against virii that don't mutate very quickly? Thank you for telling us what we know and has no bearing on what we do about HIV.
Drunk commies deleted
03-06-2006, 22:59
Smallpox also mutated very slowly.

Now, Influenza mutates so quickly that a new vaccine is needed every year. HIV mutates thousands of times faster than influenza. Do the math. You'd need multiple vaccines per day to do what you propose.
I didn't know that. Learn something new and depressing every day.
Rangerville
03-06-2006, 23:02
Yes, i know, but the original response was to the person who said we have never cured any virus. He didn't say we haven't cured any quickly multiplying ones, he said we haven't cured any. How fast they multiply didn't enter into it. It was still an inaccurate statement, because regardless of how slowly small pox multiplied, it was still eradicated. Perhaps he should have been more specific if that is what he meant, plenty of other people were.

I realize HIV will be hard to cure, i'm not one of the people who thinks it can be done quickly, or it probably would have by now.

Though technically he was right, even small pox never had a cure, just a vaccine.
CthulhuFhtagn
03-06-2006, 23:03
I didn't know that. Learn something new and depressing every day.
There's a reason why the top three causes of humanity's inevitable extinction include a viral pandemic.
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 23:04
Yes, i know, but the original response was to the person who said we have never cured any virus. He didn't say we haven't cured any quickly multiplying ones, he said we haven't cured any. How fast they multiply didn't enter into it. It was still an inaccurate statement, because regardless of how slowly small pox multiplied, it was still eradicated. Perhaps he should have been more specific if that is what he meant, plenty of other people were.

I realize HIV will be hard to cure, i'm not one of the people who thinks it can be done quickly, or it probably would have by now.

We haven't. We've vaccinated them, and we've stopped people from catching them, but no one who had them went from having it to not having it, besides through dying.
Rangerville
03-06-2006, 23:06
Yeah, i added that at the end, i went and corrected it.
Dinaverg
03-06-2006, 23:06
I didn't know that. Learn something new and depressing every day.

Yup. I think the Mayans were onto something...Look at everyhting that seems to be converging now a days...Avian flu, climate change, oil drops, Yellowstone...
Allemonde
04-06-2006, 03:12
A quarantine is not a concentration camp. Quarantines are almost the oppossite. The better a quarantine is the less people that get infected with whatever disease. The better a concentration camp the more people get killed..

And You know what will happen if the Religious Right/Corporations will do when the control them. First they stop giving them meds, then food and other neccesaries and would work them to death. If you know anything about the Nazi persecution of gays. You would understand that they didn't send them to the gas chambers they worked them in slave camps until they died.
They is a Cuba Gooding/Moira Kelley TV movie that follows that line of thought.(Daybreak)

Also What does AIDS, Anthrax, S.A.R.S, Smallpox, Terrorism and Bird Flu have in common?


Dinverg: They amount of gay people who still have promiscious unprotected sex is the same as the in the straight community. Magic Johnson ring a bell. (Not mention the fact the hetro sports/celebs who have tons of sex)

Also the first recorded AIDS victim was an airforce pilot in the 1950's. The second was a woman from Dennmark. AIDS also arrived before that in Haiti and is still a mystery why it got there.

They're all being used as a way to incite fear/hate among people.
Dinaverg
04-06-2006, 03:14
.

And You know what will happen if the Religious Right/Corporations will do when the control them. First they stop giving them meds, then food and other neccesaries and would work them to death. If you know anything about the Nazi persecution of gays. You would understand that they didn't send them to the gas chambers they worked them in slave camps until they died.

Also What does AIDS, Anthrax, S.A.R.S, Smallpox, Terrorism and Bird Flu have in common?


They're all being used as a way to incite fear/hate among people.

Hate against who? Random fear doesn't help anyone's political agenda...cept maybe anarchists.
Allemonde
04-06-2006, 03:25
Hate against who? Random fear doesn't help anyone's political agenda...cept maybe anarchists.

It's a control. Chaos breeds totalitarianism. The best example is Nazi Germany. After WWI the germans lost their empire, economic strentgh. Hitler used that and the hatred of Jews, Liberals, Communists etc.. to gain power. The first act of chaos they did was to burn the Reichstag and blame it on Jews, Liberals, Commies, gypsies etc...

As Yoda would say: "Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
Dinaverg
04-06-2006, 03:29
It's a control. Chaos breeds totalitarianism. The best example is Nazi Germany. After WWI the germans lost their empire, economic strentgh. Hitler used that and the hatred of Jews, Liberals, Communists etc.. to gain power. The first act of chaos they did was to burn the Reichstag and blame it on Jews, Liberals, Commies, gypsies etc...

As Yoda would say: Fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger, anger leads to the dark side.

Yes yes, but it needs a target. They gonna blame AIDS, SARS, Avian, etcetera on Islam or something? We're stupid, but we aren't that stupid.
Allemonde
04-06-2006, 03:47
Yes yes, but it needs a target. They gonna blame AIDS, SARS, Avian, etcetera on Islam or something? We're stupid, but we aren't that stupid.

Islam is feared by so-called terrorism which is breeding hate for muslims.(Which is equiavlent of saying that everyone in America is equvilant to Timothy McVeigh) Im sure they will blame any Anthrax or Smallpox outbreak of Islamic terrorist which is odd since the largest stockpile is at the CDC and in Russia. The Anthrax threat in 2001 actually was a scare tactic probaly done by domestic terrorists. (How did they get Anthrax I wonder?)

SARS and Avian Flu outbreaks will probaly blamed on the Chinese and will lead to ban on Chinese goods which will cause major economic shit.

I'm not sure about the americans not stupid line. We have certainly been dumbed down to ingorant clods. Look at our President for christs sake!

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the trade unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me. – Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
Dinaverg
04-06-2006, 03:51
Islam is feared by so-called terrorism which is breeding hate for muslims.(Which is equiavlent of saying that everyone in America is equvilant to Timothy McVeigh) Im sure they will blame any Anthrax or Smallpox outbreak of Islamic terrorist which is odd since the largest stockpile is at the CDC and in Russia. The Anthrax threat in 2001 actually was a scare tactic probaly done by domestic terrorists. (How did they get Anthrax I wonder?)

SARS and Avian Flu outbreaks will probaly blamed on the Chinese and will lead to ban on Chinese goods which will cause major economic shit.

I'm not sure about the americans not stupid line. We have certainly been dumbed down to ingorant clods. Look at our President for christs sake!

This is just a conspiracy theory for the sake of having a theory.

What government causes an epidemic to rally it's people together? You're gonna kill most of them, what's gonna happen to your army?
Allemonde
04-06-2006, 04:05
What government causes an epidemic to rally it's people together? You're gonna kill most of them, what's gonna happen to your army?

The best example is Nazi Germany. After WWI the germans lost their empire, economic strentgh. Hitler used that and the hatred of Jews, Liberals, Communists etc.. to gain power. The first act of chaos they did was to burn the Reichstag and blame it on Jews, Liberals, Commies, gypsies etc...

Totalitarian Regimes. Europeans against native people giving them smallpox infected blankets. I doubt that those diseases will kill more than 1-5% of the population. If u think about it most of the people that these people hate/dislike live in urban centers. If you only targeted urban centers it would only effect mostly poor/minorities/gay/liberal communities. Not advocating that Most others will A-won't care or will be happy. or B-fear that the next outbreak or attack will hit their home.
New Zero Seven
04-06-2006, 04:26
Hopefully... someday... somewhere down the road... we'll be able to help those affected by this virus. For now, I believe education is the most important thing we can offer for those ignorant of the disease.
Texoma Land
04-06-2006, 05:03
Research tracks the origin of HIV to chimps in Cameron. The first human to human infection is now believed to have happened in the 1930s and then slowly spread (transport systems weren't as well developed back then).

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/05/25/hiv-chimps.html?ref=rss

http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/archive/00-078.shtml

As for a cure/vaccine, there is hope in genetic engineering. Nothing is the short term mind you. But it may in fact be possible to effectivly fight this disease one day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4160849.stm

And 1% of northern Europeans and their decendants are already immune to HIV. There is a raging debate on whether it was plauge or small pox that caused the genetic mutation that gives immunity. But either way, it is an important field of study that may one day yeild a cure/prevenative.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C00E3DF153CF934A1575AC0A960958260


http://www.medicineonline.com/conditions/article.html?articleID=2684&catID=12