Two big HIV stories, one from my work, OHSU. National story nature article about a vaccine that clears monkey of SIV, the monkey equivalent of HIV - OHSU story OHSU AIDS vaccine candidate appears to completely clear virus from the body
I was trying to figure out if the SIV story was also the OHSU story. It is a great, great thing Jesus has done for us... OOPS i meant science.
While I'm delighted they may be close to finding a cure/vaccine for HIV/AIDS, a lot of the people with that horrible disease brought it on themselves. I'd be happier to read we were closer on cancer, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, etc.
They address HIV/AIDS sooner because it can be spread. Parkinsons and Alzheimers are being worked on, but are only spread through children.
i was wondering the same thing, but i choose a name from the OHSU story and it was not on the list of authors from the Nature story, so I think they are independent. Maybe later I'll read the whole Nature article instead of just the abstract. As of last year, over 33 million people have HIV/AIDS and more than 25 million have died from it. If you think all those people did something egregious to get it are seriously wrong. People with compromised immune systems are much more likely to get it, be that from drug use or malnutrition. Most of the cases are in places where malnutrition runs rampant. In parts of Africa, it is believed that the way to get rid of AIDS is to have sex with a virgin, so men rape girls, who usually bleed their first time, in an attempt to rid themselves of this disease. The outcome is now another girl has HIV/AIDS. There is a ton of research on Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, in fact I have personally done research in these fields. But they are not nearly the killers and don't strike the young as HIV/AIDS do. By the way, there have been some pretty impressive breakthroughs lately in both Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, I I wouldn't be surprised to see Parkinson's under control in the next decade and Alzheimer's shortly after that. The trick is to FUND the sciences.
I completely am disagreeing with parts of what you said. As an example I gave the girl who gets raped. What did she do? Others may choose not to use condoms or to share needles, and that's dumb, but not nearly deserving of HIV/AIDS. I do agree with "delighted they may be close to finding a cure/vaccine for HIV/AIDS" don't agree with "a lot of the people with that horrible disease brought it on themselves" for several reasons. "bringing it on themselves" is a term that connotes deserving what comes. And living with poor sanitation and malnutrition certainly does not deserve this, sex without a condom does not deserve this, homosexual intercourse certainly does not deserve this, even shooting drugs does not deserve this. don't agree with "I'd be happier to read we were closer on cancer, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, etc.", I think we should be attacking all these, the amount of resources we put towards research is just a tiny portion of what we should be spending, so we should be able to focus on all these areas at once. If I had to rank, I would go Cancer then HIV/AIDS, then Alzheimer's, then Parkinson's. But I don't think any of them should be ignored.
Not all Also, I would never wish any disease on anyone. However, if you have unprotected sex, you are more likely to contract HIV. If you have unprotected gay sex, you are even more likely. If you have unprotected sex with multiple partners you are more likely, and finally, if you have unprotected gay sex with multiple partners even more likely. Monogamy is a pretty easy way to not get the virus, thus people bring it on themselves. Obviously not everyone. How can you not agree with what woul dmake me personally, a person with cancer, happier?
It just doesn't matter. Any of those reasons you list for reasons not to address something that has stricken over 58,000,000 people are drastically insufficient and your logic is disgusting.
Honestly MM, this was not the purpose of this thread. I was just impressed with the advancements, these seem to be major steps to saving millions of lives and making the lives of millions of others much more enjoyable. Peace.
Screw you, mediocre man. Screw you from here to fucking eternity. Do you also oppose seat belts because people drive too fast? Funny, I don't see you complaining if someone finds treatment for heart disease, oh no, just something you think of as "gay". I was going to write something thoughtful, but I thought of the people I loved and lost. We lost a whole fucking generation of young men including some of the people I loved most on this crappy planet and you fucking say who cared about a cure, those queers and junkies brought it on themselves. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Mr. Mediocre fucking perfect who no doubt never drove too fast or ate a doughnut.
I'm far from an expert on AIDS, but I had never heard that poor sanitation and malnutrition cause AIDS. I'm not saying it doesn't, just wondering how that works. Go Blazers
Huh, I reread my post, and I didn't see where I said who cared about a cure, those queers and junkies brought it on themselves. I said that both heterosexual and gay people who have unprotected sex with multiple partners are more likely to get the disease. Or did you miss the part about the heterosexual people? I don't believe I am incorrect in my statement, but if I am, then I apologize. If my wife and I's monogamous drug free relationship offers the same risks as a drug user or someone who sleeps around, gay or straight, let me know.
not that they cause it at all, but that a poor immune system is makes it much much easier to get HIV. For example, there was a study of those who with the same sexual lifestyle, but one group were Meth users (non-intravenously) and the other group was not, and the rate of getting HIV is significantly higher in the group that uses Meth. Meth by the way kills the immune system. It most certainly does not cause HIV, but malnutrition and other immune system affecting activities greatly impact chances of transmission. This by no way means that a perfectly healthy non-drug using person can't get HIV, just that they have a much greater chance of their body fighting the original virus off before HIV presents. EDIT: I have never studied HIV/AIDS other than reading articles here and there, so please understand I am not an expert. My knowledge is very limited.
so..its still a life style issue then, huh? Kinda sounds like MM is correct Oh, and I did not see where he was in any way deserving of crandc's hatefullness.
it depends on what MM is correct about. A gay person is more likely to transmit HIV sexually, that is correct. But, I would say that does not matter at all, Is one race less than others because they are susceptible to sickle cell anemia? The offense is that MM says "a lot of the people with that horrible disease brought it on themselves". The main groups of people affected globally are the poor in places like the Congo, Gay men, and people addicted to drugs. Using terms like "brought it on themselves" imply deserves what they did to themselves. Which group deserves it, the poor, the gay or the addicted?
I am, and I wasn't It's certainly not ONLY a lifestyle issue. But without looking at statistics, I would imagine it's 99ish% a lifestyle issue
You are saying they deserved it, not me. You are reading into my comments and putting words in my mouth. No one deserves HIV. It's a horrible disease. However, but playing on CrandC's "eloquent" donut analogy.....If you eat donuts all the time, don't be surprised if you get heart disease or diabetes.
