Never heard of this HPV vaccinne, but I can tell you that if you've had sex, EVER, then you most probably have the HPV virus in your bloodstream.
Originally posted by: LH
Someone mentioned HPV.
They have a vaccine for HPV, so far its been 100% effective at stopping HPV. Its undergoing further clinical trials, and is supposed to be on the market in 2005. If it works, eventually every teenage girl will have the vaccine as part of their innoculations.
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
8,971 is a lot, but the odds are still quite low. The information I'm finding suggests between 1 and 2 cases per million.
I do not want AIDS (duh), but I also do not want public funding spent developing a vaccine for me. I know how to improve my odds, and I am quite comfortable with those odds. I'll take my chances with AIDS.
Viper GTS
Originally posted by: Lucky
Even including the early days of HIV when screening was non-existant, only about 8,000 people have contracted HIV through blood transfusions in the US. That may be a lot but compared to the total number of HIV cases its miniscule.
Originally posted by: lirion
What people? Who's got all this money? Who says they want to spend it on HIV education? Who says the nations in question will listen (you're talking about very different social norms from our own)? Who says they even have infrastructure to disseminate the education? Who says taxpayers won't freak out at the thought of their tax dollars going to help a nation they don't give two sh*ts about? Who says the problem will go away? Never underestimate the power of people to be stupid and ignorant. Think about teens and pregnancy rumors (won't get preggers if you have sex standing up/in a pool/etc). By your model, we should have nipped teen pregnancy and STDs in general in the bud years ago. It's just not that simple.
Bad news. Most scientists have neither money nor political clout. They would have next to no say in this.What people? The people working towards a vaccine of course. The people doing to education could have been whoever was going to administer the vaccines.
More bad news. The money it takes to research a vaccine and the money it would take to effect a massive educational campaign over several continents isn't even in the same ballpark.Who's got the money? Well, someone *had* the money, if they spent it to research a vaccine.
Actually, it needs to be all of the above. Treat symptoms of those who are suffering. Educate all to help stem the spread of existing cases. Vaccinate those who may be exposed to the virus by chance or ignorance.Who says they want to educate? Well, that's the thing, they obviously don't, they would rather just treat symptoms, but I hold that they *should* want to educate. They want to get rid of AIDS, and education seems like a more straight forward way to do it.
Agreed, but it takes much, much longer to affect change in thinking via education. In that amount of time, a country like India could spiral into a state similar to the current state of sub-saharan Africa. A vaccine now would change that almost immediately.Who says they'll listen? Well, they have to listen, someday. These countries aren't going to stay in the stone age forever. In the mean while we should just not try? They have to learn the truth sometime.
Apples and oranges. Rounding people up and sticking them in the arm (think smallpox) is a far simpler task than rounding them up repeatedly, communicating with them and convincing them that what you're saying is fact.Who says they have the infrastructure to disseminate the education? I don't see any reason why they couldn't use the same infrastructure they would have used to disseminate the vaccine.
No, they'll freak out that we're spending money to help people they don't care about (Africa) or don't like (homosexuals, drug users, dumbasses, etc).Who says taxpayers won't freak out? They'll freak out over education, but not a vaccine? Who cares anyway, it's not like we matter, we're just the people.
That's a lovely sentiment.Who says the problem will go away? Well, we have access to modern information, and we don't have 30% of our population with AIDS. Of course there will be stupid people who don't listen, chalk it up to natural selection.
Common sense has nothing to do with it. The sex drive is only outweighed by the hunger/thirst drive; people are going to have sex no matter what you tell them. They get drunk, condoms break, common sense goes out the window in the heat of the moment, etc. It's just the way it is."By your model, we should have nipped teen pregnancy and STDs in general in the bud years ago. It's just not that simple." It's only a problem if you choose to have sex. Those who refuse to follow their common sense, or have none, would have done the same no matter what.
As I stated above, it's gotta be a three-pronged attack or it won't go away. Even with an effective vaccine tomorrow, you still have millions with a slow horrible death sentence hanging over them and millions more who could spread or receive the virus unwittingly. Treatment, Education, Vaccination.I'm not opposed to a vaccine, in fact I'm glad we might have it. I just think that the money could have been better spent by bringing these developing countries up to speed with the modern world. By educating these people, we bring them closer to being a developed society, and we make the world a better place. By making an AIDS vaccine, the world stays the same as is alwasy was, only people don't get AIDS anymore, *if they can get the vaccine*. I guess we just belong to different schools of thought on this.
Well if the vaccine becomes available tomorrow, then no you can't ethically decide who gets it or who doesn't get it based on a moral judgement.When you mix your culturally created ideas of "morals" with science is where I draw the line and put you on the other side with other people I have no respect for.
Hey GirlFriday, hows about trying something substantive in your argument instead of demonstrating the lack thereof by having to nit-pick my word choice?Rather monogamous? How can you be rather monogamous, you either are or you aren't. And heres a clue for everyone. Once you stick it in, you are at risk. Condoms can break,or get minute tears in them that you can't even see. People can lie about their past history, and how many they have slept with before you. They can cheat on you while you are together, and you don't have to know about it.
Well sure, if you are alive, you're at risk for death. Maybe we should all hide under our beds and refuse to come out.If you have sex nowadays, you are at risk. No matter who you are sleeping with. It's that simple.
The only way to properly deal with that is execution.In the last few years there has been two cases of HIV-positive man having sex and raping women. Just last week there was case where a HIV-positive man brought women to his apartment, drugged them and raped them. Last time I heard, he had over 20 victims.
I was first surgical assistant for years, I have been stuck with contaminated needles more times than I care to remember, I have been stuck by trocars, cut by contaminated scalpels. I have had blood splashed in my eyes, on my skin, I have been covered in urine and feces. Hasn't changed my position much. If you're using universal precautions, the risk qualifies as a statistical anomaly.Also, think of all the EMT's, doctors, nurses, etc., that are exposed to it on a daily basis... is it a mistake to help those with AIDS and possible contract it from them? and is that mistake one that should cost them thier lives?
Sure, because beliefs and lifestyles ARE NOT A FACTOR for contracting the diseases to which we have developed vaccines to protect the public at large (as opposed to a highly identifiable and predictable subset of the population). This is not Polio, Smallpox, Cholera, or Mumps. HIV is not even moderately communicable nor even particularly contagious.Vaccines are developed to protect the PUBLIC health from communicable diseases. This at times will mean that we protect the health of folks who's beliefs and lifestyles we don't agree with.
LMAO! Is that what they are calling negligent personal behavior now-a-days? People who 'chose to express their feelings physically'? Oh wow, that's a new one...thanks for the chuckle. And one logical inference from this statement is that responsible people obviously don't have sex? OK!Sounds like a perfectly fine trade off to me if it means that somebody I love won't be sentenced to death for being human and making an error in judgement about who they chose to express their feelings for physically.
Sure, in lower ANIMALS, not people. We have bigger brains for a reason, and that reason isn't to make us more top heavy as a counterweight when having all of this uncontrollable, compulsive, and involuntary sex.Common sense has nothing to do with it. The sex drive is only outweighed by the hunger/thirst drive; people are going to have sex no matter what you tell them.
Yep, they get drunk, drive, kill someone, that's just the way it is. Since its so natural, then we should not punish drinking and driving.They get drunk, condoms break, common sense goes out the window in the heat of the moment, etc. It's just the way it is.
Sure, in lower ANIMALS, not people. We have bigger brains for a reason, and that reason isn't to make us more top heavy as a counterweight when having all of this uncontrollable, compulsive, and involuntary sex.
So having sex/contracting something = vehicular homicide? That's a pretty pathetic analogy. All I'm saying is that education will never totally override our ability as humans to be morons so we need vaccines in addition to education/common sense.Yep, they get drunk, drive, kill someone, that's just the way it is. Since its so natural, then we should not punish drinking and driving.
Originally posted by: MichaelD
Originally posted by: LH
Someone mentioned HPV.
They have a vaccine for HPV, so far its been 100% effective at stopping HPV. Its undergoing further clinical trials, and is supposed to be on the market in 2005. If it works, eventually every teenage girl will have the vaccine as part of their innoculations.
Never heard of this HPV vaccinne, but I can tell you that if you've had sex, EVER, then you most probably have the HPV virus in your bloodstream.
Originally posted by: Ganryu
Originally posted by: MichaelD
Originally posted by: LH
Someone mentioned HPV.
They have a vaccine for HPV, so far its been 100% effective at stopping HPV. Its undergoing further clinical trials, and is supposed to be on the market in 2005. If it works, eventually every teenage girl will have the vaccine as part of their innoculations.
Never heard of this HPV vaccinne, but I can tell you that if you've had sex, EVER, then you most probably have the HPV virus in your bloodstream.
That is not correct.
Letting people die who have a deadly and contagious disease for which there is no definitive treatment or cure, is and has always been a legitimate method of protecting the greater population from the disease. Doing otherwise is to ensure that the disease kills tens of millions more than need be.It is ridiculous to argue with tcsenter about this. We were already in this debate a few months ago. Do a search with either of our names to find it. tcsenter feels that the disease is contracted by people with no morals and that we should simply let them die off. He doesn't care what happens to "Abu Daba and his 50 kids in africa" (his words, not mine) and ignores the fact that the disease has reached epidemic proportions in Africa and is on the verge of doing so in India and China.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
I don't think anybody here is arguing that an AIDS vaccine is a bad thing.
What I think they're saying is that there is a finite pool of money that goes toward disease research, and they'd prefer the money to go to something like cancer research.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
It is ridiculous to argue with tcsenter about this. We were already in this debate a few months ago. Do a search with either of our names to find it. tcsenter feels that the disease is contracted by people with no morals and that we should simply let them die off. He doesn't care what happens to "Abu Daba and his 50 kids in africa" (his words, not mine) and ignores the fact that the disease has reached epidemic proportions in Africa and is on the verge of doing so in India and China. Letting people die who have a deadly and contagious disease for which there is no definitive treatment or cure, is and has always been a legitimate method of protecting the greater population from the disease. Doing otherwise is to ensure that the disease kills tens of millions more than need be.
If there was an outbreak of Ebola in the US, what do you believe the response would be? To allow infected persons to mingle with the general population? You're an ignorant fool if you believe so. They would be immediately quarantined to protect the rest of the population. They are not "allowed" to die, because there is no known treatment for Ebola. They are simply not "allowed" to spread the disease to others. If they die, that's an unfortunate consequence of THE DISEASE, not the public health measures taken to protect the population.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Ever heard of the term "quarantine"? It is a public health measure that has served this and other societies extremely well to prevent epidemics and pandemics. You remove from the general population those with the infection and who are contagious, you certainly treat them if you can and attempt to respect their dignity, but you quarantine them to save millions of others.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
That was not done in 1982 when we were beginning to understand the blood-borne and contagious nature of HIV, and when it was almost exclusively limited to a highly identifiable subset of the population, because the homosexual lobby was rather successful at using their political influence to protect their notoriously deviant sexual behaviors at bath houses, which is indisputably where the first known "reservoir" of HIV infected persons collected in the United States and spread the virus to other non-infected persons who patroned these bath houses.
The homosexual lobby felt that having a public place to perform unprotected anal rimming and penetration with multiple partners simulatenously was more important than protecting the tens of thousands of people who would contract HIV at these bath houses, and now the millions who would ultimately contract the disease. Let's have a cheer for the homo lobby, whose penchant for notoriously deviant sexual practices single-handidly promoted immunological conditions among a very small subset of the gay population through which HIV would spread like wildfire, then outwardly from there. Hurray!
So you'll forgive me if I have no tolerance for those such as you, Ganryu, who would have, not 40 million people infected with HIV, but 100 million, and then 200 million infected with HIV, because avoiding the offense of their delicate sensitivities and "feelings" is more important than stopping a disease which WILL ravage the world's population if we maintain the status quo.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
But hey, maybe you're secretly hiding and protecting some world population control theory we don't know about.
Where are we, Ganryu? 40 million and counting? 80 million and counting? I forget off the top of my head. Has Ebola infected that many people? When the number is 1 billion, will you be clinging to the same argument that 'ebola is different because its deadlier and more contagious'?Ebola is not a good analogy. It is highly contagious even through nonsexual contact unlike HIV. In addition Ebola has a mortality rate of about 90% while HIV with treatment is significantly lower.
NOW there are, there weren't in 1983/84-ish. While we cannot quarantine them physically, we can do more to identify HIV positive individuals and inform them they are HIV positive.You cannot quarantine a population disease like HIV because there are too many infected people and because the incubation time can be extremely long (the virus can remain latent for 10 years or more).
It is indisputable fact, not theory. The homo lobby cared more about protecting their lifestyle than preventing a deadly epidemic. Hell, when the Red Cross proposed to ban homosexual men from donating blood, thousands of gay men flocked to the blood banks and gave blood as a form of protest. How many hemophiliac children and transfusion recipients do you estimate are dead because of that little stunt, Ganryu?As opposed to you promoting your theories about crazy "gay agendas"
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Yeah, I mean what is NOT to like about nearly 30% of the adult population having an STD? Speed bumps, VD, clamydia, unwanted children...hey where do I sign up for that.well...sorry to hear that you guys don't fVck around...believe me, you don't what you are missing
Everyone knows you can't have "good sex" unless you're having it with IV drug users, prostitutes, gay men, and strangers?
Originally posted by: Fausto1
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?
Originally posted by: Ganryu
It is ridiculous to argue with tcsenter about this. We were already in this debate a few months ago. Do a search with either of our names to find it. tcsenter feels that the disease is contracted by people with no morals and that we should simply let them die off. He doesn't care what happens to "Abu Daba and his 50 kids in africa" (his words, not mine) and ignores the fact that the disease has reached epidemic proportions in Africa and is on the verge of doing so in India and China.
In affluent and progressive societies, that is true. Drug users and homosexuals will pretty much be the only casualties, and those who sleep with drug users and homosexuals. It will decimate the populations of poorer countries. But hey, I'm starting to see your motives. Imagine what a few billion dead Chinese, Indians, and Africans will do for the world's burdensome population? Hmm, maybe I haven't thought this through....This is inconsistent with your previous argument where you say that AIDS will not ravage the world's population but instead only the select few (drug users and homosexuals).
I don't understand public health issues? LMAO!I don't have a problem with the idea of promoting safe sex and monogamy and what not as you state, the problem is that you simply do not understand the impracticality of this or anything about public health issues.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Where are we, Ganryu? 40 million and counting? 80 million and counting? I forget off the top of my head. Has Ebola infected that many people? When the number is 1 billion, will you be clinging to the same argument that 'ebola is different because its deadlier and more contagious'?Ebola is not a good analogy. It is highly contagious even through nonsexual contact unlike HIV. In addition Ebola has a mortality rate of about 90% while HIV with treatment is significantly lower.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
NOW there are, there weren't in 1983/84-ish. While we cannot quarantine them physically, we can do more to identify HIV positive individuals and inform them they are HIV positive.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
The homo lobby cared more about protecting their lifestyle than preventing a deadly epidemic. Hell, when the Red Cross proposed to ban homosexual men from donating blood, thousands of gay men flocked to the blood banks and gave blood as a form of protest. How many hemophiliac children and transfusion recipients do you estimate are dead because of that little stunt, Ganryu?
HIV is 100% fatal to our knowledge, Ebola isn't even that deadly. Now you're talking about something that doesn't kill anyone, and I'm the one who doesn't know anything about public health issues? Are you FOR REAL Ganryu? Or are you just a 'mole' trying your best to make your side look stupid?Hundreds of millions of people have the common cold yet we don't quartantine them all because it is relatively inocuous.
You're arguing with ME and you don't even know the HISTORY of AIDS/HIV in the US? For crying out loud!I would like you to reference the point where you say that thousands flocked to banks to give blood in protest. You are also forgetting that the blood banks continued to use the blood even when they knew a certain amount was contaminated. How many do you think are dead because of that stunt?
Originally posted by: tcsenter
HIV is 100% fatal to our knowledge, Ebola isn't even that deadly. Now you're talking about something that doesn't kill anyone, and I'm the one who doesn't know anything about public health issues? Are you FOR REAL Ganryu? Or are you just a 'mole' trying your best to make your side look stupid?
HIV is not 100% fatal (to your limited knowledge maybe but not to that of the entire medical community). As I stated, for most people that are compliant with the drug regimen it is manageable. Ebola has a 90% mortality and no available treatment. I don't understand what you are trying to say about my being a mole, you are the one stating incorrect facts and resorting to name calling.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
You're arguing with ME and you don't even know the HISTORY of AIDS/HIV in the US? For crying out loud!
Actually I do, you are the one who is misstating events and distorting facts. That is why I'm asking you to back up your statements.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Stop this masquerade, NOBODY could accidentally be such a horrible advocate for your position. Are you from that group who wants to pull all AIDS funding?
Umm.. no.. I believe I'm advocating my position just fine. The problem with your arguments is that you are giving impractical solutions and blaming past mistakes instead of looking for reasonable goals.
Originally posted by: rahvin
Something to consider: HIV is a virus that undergoes tremendous mutation rates, last I heard it alters it's protein skin completely every 18 months or so. This makes a vaccine for the virus highly improbable, but it also postulates a major health risk. With it's tremendous rate of mutation there is a fear that HIV could alter it's transmission path. There has been speculation that if the disease is allowed to run rampant in humans for a long enough the virus could mutate and become airborne transmissible or find another vector. Consider a world where HIV can be transmitted by breath.
Combating disease is a lot like war, if you don't fight it when you can you run the risk that the enemy can develop the weapons to destroy you.
Wow. How's the air up there?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.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
That's precisely the point. People who believe that you can know the history of a person by their outward appearance are bound to become an STD statistic.IV heroin use has been escalating and not just among ghetto dwellers,lots of young,upscale addicts running around,people with great jobs who come from good neighborhoods and backgrounds, you'd never know they were addicts just by looking at them.Sure, you can have sex with an IV drug user and not know they are an IV drug user, just like these stupid mothers who claim that they didn't know their own children were being sexually molested by their father for 10 years in their own home right under their freaking nose.These nice folks use drugs and yes they share needles and they are the bridge by which HIV spreads into the mainstream hetrosexual community.
The idea that you can have sex with an IV drug user and not know it is about as false and fundamentally stupid as the idea that your children can be molested for 10 years under your own roof and you may not know about it.
If you have sex with an IV drug user and weren't aware they were an IV drug user, that can ONLY mean one thing: you didn't know that person well enough to be having sex with them.