Testing the First AIDS Vaccine

[tcsenter]

I would like you to reference the point where you say that thousands flocked to banks to give blood in protest.

Unfortunately, I'm using a backup computer while Newegg decides what they're going to do about my defective motherboard. My 40GB hard drive, which contains all of my files, is sitting here next to me because the backup computer doesn't recognize it. So I don't have access to all my files.

But here, start with:

Various articles and papers about AIDs/HIV and public policy by Michael Fumento, including his book "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", who most succinctly put it "The issue is not and never has been, as Konstantin Berlandt contends, "society's responsibility to find the medical technology to prevent all sexually transmitted diseases rather than the gay community's responsibility to keep sexuality in line with what medical technology can cure." That also applies to the heterosexual community.

Various articles about AIDs/HIV, the atrocious behavior of the homosexual community, their failure to put public health over their "constitutional right" to free-wheeling anal sex with perfect strangers, written by one of the 80's Bay Area gay radicals who participated in much of this atrocious behavior and contracted HIV, the late Randy Shilts, including his book "And the Band Played On".

Various articles and papers written by another HIV positive homosexual man who had the courage to admit that the radical homosexual community, including himself, has the blood of a few million people on their hands, for their failures to put public health over radical gay politics, Andrew Sullivan.

That should tide you over, unless you had no intention of reading anything I suggested.

 

[tcsenter]

When you sleep with somebody you not only are with them but also with every other sexual partner they've had for quite awhile.

Well, I suppose theres nothing wrong with regurgitating what you see and hear on televised Public Service Announcements.

I also find the high and mighty morality around here rather amusing for some strange reason

Oh is that what using your brain and behaving responsible is being called now-a-days? "Acting high and mighty"? lol!

This just gets better and better! You keep this up and any moment those with multiple DUI convictions will be in here saying "Yeah, who do you think you are? You think you're some high and mighty moral person? Well don't be so full of yourself buster, because let me tell you, you too could wake up one morning and find yourself serving 10 years in prison after your fifth DUI conviction like I did."

Yeah, that's how it happens, you just go to bed one night and wake up the next morning with five DUI convictions (or sexually transmitted diseases). lol!

 

[Yeeny]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
I also find the high and mighty morality around here rather amusing for some strange reason

You aren't the only one Geekbabe. I just wonder how their opinions would be if it God forbid happened to them or someone they loved/cared about. I bet then they would be singing a different tune. I just hope they don't fall off their pedestals, its a long way down, they might bruise their arses when they land.

*edit, changed a word

 

[tcsenter]

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.

Oh really? Do provide this medical evidence that HIV is something less than 100% fatal? Interesting revelation I'm sure the CDC would be surprised to hear. I was not referring to those who are on anti-retrovirals and protease-inhibitors. I was talking about HIV without treatment.

I just wonder how their opinions would be if it God forbid happened to them or someone they loved/cared about. I bet then they would be singing a different tune.

And what on earth would make you think this has NOT happened to 'someone they loved/cared about'? Is "love" now being used to excuse personal negligence and irresponsibility?

Great! What's one more excuse out of 100...

My father has lung cancer from smoking for 50+ years and will probably be dead in 12 months. Guess whose fault that is? Not Philip Morris'.

I guess that means I don't love him, goodness knows that "love" means you cannot admit fault in a person, therefore they are never to blame for their own choices and decisions, its always someone else's fault. Oooo-k!

 

[Yeeny]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

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.

Oh really? Do provide this medical evidence that HIV is something less than 100% fatal? Interesting revelation I'm sure the CDC would be surprised to hear. I was not referring to those who are on anti-retrovirals and protease-inhibitors. I was talking about HIV without treatment.

I just wonder how their opinions would be if it God forbid happened to them or someone they loved/cared about. I bet then they would be singing a different tune.

And what on earth would make you think this has NOT happened to 'someone they loved/cared about'? Is "love" now being used to excuse personal negligence and irresponsibility?

Great! What's one more excuse out of 100...

My father has lung cancer from smoking for 50+ years and will probably be dead in 12 months. Guess whose fault that is? Not Philip Morris'.

I guess that means I don't love him, goodness knows that "love" means you cannot admit fault in a person, therefore they are never to blame for their own choices and decisions, its always someone else's fault. Oooo-k!

My aunt died of cancer from smoking, as has my grandfather, and grandmother. Do you see me complaining about research for a cancer vaccine, even though they may have brought it on themselves? No, you don't. Ooo-k?

 

[tcsenter]

My aunt died of cancer from smoking, as has my grandfather, and grandmother. Do you see me complaining about research for a cancer vaccine, even though they may have brought it on themselves? No, you don't. Ooo-k?

Nobody is searching for a vaccine to prevent lung cancer from smoking, at least I've never heard of such a thing. Even the NIH has far more pressing things to fund, such as those diseases that nobody really knows how to prevent or treat.

Unlike AIDS research, cancer research in general has far reaching implications for all types of cancers, and whadaya know, as a matter of public policy, the types of cancer research we place priority funding on are those cancers which are as of yet relatively unpreventable and for which there are few or no effective treatments.

 

[oldirtythao]

wow.. I think this is pretty cool. I'm all for a vaccine, education can only go so far, it helps but it can only go so far. Look at those drug awareness programs like DARE and Smoke Out, everyone goes through it but by the time you go to college most of the kids do it. The best and the brightest in college too. Anything that can help is a good thing i think.

 

[Yeeny]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

My aunt died of cancer from smoking, as has my grandfather, and grandmother. Do you see me complaining about research for a cancer vaccine, even though they may have brought it on themselves? No, you don't. Ooo-k?

Nobody is searching for a vaccine to prevent lung cancer from smoking, at least I've never heard of such a thing. Even the NIH has far more pressing things to fund, such as those diseases that nobody really knows how to prevent or treat.

link

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: GirlFriday

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.

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.

If you have sex nowadays, you are at risk. No matter who you are sleeping with. It's that simple.

Unless you're like us and are eachothers only partner



To whoever said we don't know what causes cancer, or whatever... It's easy to prevent cancer. Don't eat things that cause cancer... lol

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

well...sorry to hear that you guys don't fVck around...believe me, you don't what you are missing

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.

Everyone knows you can't have "good sex" unless you're having it with IV drug users, prostitutes, gay men, and strangers?

What gives you the idea that gay men are more likely to have HIV than straight men?

 

[Geekbabe]

My brother was diagonosed as Hiv + something like 14 years ago.I thank god for the advances in treatment that gave him those 14 yrs,I hope that he lives many more

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: Eli
To whoever said we don't know what causes cancer, or whatever... It's easy to prevent cancer. Don't eat things that cause cancer... lol

There are natural processes which take place in the body which contribute to cancer. You don't need to be exposed to carcinogens to get cancer.

 

[tcsenter]

What gives you the idea that gay men are more likely to have HIV than straight men?

The fact that all statistical evidence without exception shows this to be true may have something to do with it.

 

[Dragnov]

There already is a cure for AIDS. Magic Johnson just won't tell anyone about it!

 

[tcsenter]

Nobody is searching for a vaccine to prevent lung cancer from smoking, at least I've never heard of such a thing. Even the NIH has far more pressing things to fund, such as those diseases that nobody really knows how to prevent or treat.

link

Hey whad'ya know? Unfortunately, one of those clinical trials is for metastatic lung cancer, which means cancers that have spread to the lungs from another primary cancer elsewhere in the body. This is very common, many lung cancers are metastatic, not primary. I believe the same is also true of the other trial, but I'm not sure.

In any event, neither is particular or specific to lung cancer caused by smoking.

 

[eakers]

this thread is a shining example of the ignorance and intollerance on the forums.

i am disgusted.

 

[yellowperil]

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.

However, you CAN decide as a matter of public policy which research efforts will receive more public funding than others based on a moral judgement. Its done ALL THE TIME, every single day. There are unlimited causes, but very limited funds. We MUST prioritize what is important, and among the many legitimate factors which can and do determine our priorities are basic moral judgements.

Saying that cancer patients "deserve" to be cured more than AIDS patients is pretty ridiculous. How about just sticking to an objective public policy of allocating funds to diseases according to their seriousness & prevalance, rather than interjecting some arbitrary moral standard.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think all funding for AIDS vaccines should be terminated. Who cares if these people die? After all, it isn't like they use health care resources or drive up medical costs or insurance or anything. Doesnt affect me, and treating AIDS patients dont cost one cent, so it's not my problem now is it?

 

[A5]

Originally posted by: eakers
this thread is a shining example of the ignorance and intollerance on the forums.

i am disgusted.

You're just adding to it.

 

[TNTrulez]

Hope it works.

 

[Yeeny]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Nobody is searching for a vaccine to prevent lung cancer from smoking, at least I've never heard of such a thing. Even the NIH has far more pressing things to fund, such as those diseases that nobody really knows how to prevent or treat.

link

Hey whad'ya know? Unfortunately, one of those clinical trials is for metastatic lung cancer, which means cancers that have spread to the lungs from another primary cancer elsewhere in the body. This is very common, many lung cancers are metastatic, not primary. I believe the same is also true of the other trial, but I'm not sure.

In any event, neither is particular or specific to lung cancer caused by smoking.

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

 

[Ganryu]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Oh really? Do provide this medical evidence that HIV is something less than 100% fatal? Interesting revelation I'm sure the CDC would be surprised to hear. I was not referring to those who are on anti-retrovirals and protease-inhibitors. I was talking about HIV without treatment.

This is what I meant about you not understanding public health or medical concepts. Someone with HIV can live for years without developing AIDS. Somebody with AIDS can live for a few years (even without treatment) and for many years with treatment. 90% of those with Ebola will die within a few weeks of infection and there is no treatment. 100% of HIV patients will die eventually but not for several years.

 

[tcsenter]

Ganryu say as he essentially admits I am right and he is wrong, "This is what I meant about you not understanding public health or medical concepts."

Someone with HIV can live for years without developing AIDS. Somebody with AIDS can live for a few years (even without treatment) and for many years with treatment. 90% of those with Ebola will die within a few weeks of infection and there is no treatment. 100% of HIV patients will die eventually but not for several years.

Ok, thanks for that clarification, Ganryu. So when I said HIV without treatment is 100% fatal, and that Ebola is less than that (between 50% - 90%, depending upon many factors), that was actually incorrect. The correct information as you were kind enough to point out is that HIV without treatment is 100% fatal while Ebola is less than that?

Uh...thanks for that clarification!

this thread is a shining example of the ignorance and intollerance on the forums.

i am disgusted.

I know, me too! I amazes me that people believe you just "get" HIV from touching door handles or something, therefore, your risk of contracting HIV is equal to anyone elses. lol!

If you're not an IV drug user, homosexual, prostitute, and do not sleep with any of these people, your risk of contracting HIV is about as high as randomly being run-over by an MTA bus, and what are the odds of being run-over by an MTA bus if you never leap out in front of one? Probably on the level of winning the Big Game Multistate Lotto Jackpot.

Similarly, your risk of suffering a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head is statistically irrelevent if you don't put a gun to your head and pull the trigger.

There IS a lot of ignorance...

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Ganryu say as he essentially admits I am right and he is wrong, "This is what I meant about you not understanding public health or medical concepts."

Someone with HIV can live for years without developing AIDS. Somebody with AIDS can live for a few years (even without treatment) and for many years with treatment. 90% of those with Ebola will die within a few weeks of infection and there is no treatment. 100% of HIV patients will die eventually but not for several years.

Ok, thanks for that clarification, Ganryu. So when I said HIV without treatment is 100% fatal, and that Ebola is less than that (between 50% - 90%, depending upon many factors), that was actually incorrect. The correct information as you were kind enough to point out is that HIV without treatment is 100% fatal while Ebola is less than that.

Uh...thanks for that clarification!

IIRC, the mortality rate (for Ebola Zaire) is very high, somewhere between 80-90%. For Ebola Sudan, it's much less (50-60%), and the Marburg strain (not Ebola, but oft-touted as such, symptomatically similar) is around 25%.

 

[tcsenter]

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

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