- Oct 9, 1999
- 4,998
- 0
- 0
the vaccine is still working, they only need 3 under the skin injections at beginning of treatment, and it lasts at least 1 year and keeps improving for at least 1 year
Uh-huh.. That'll work for sure, just like it has, already. :roll:Originally posted by: Riprorin
Here's an even better solution: don't engage in risky behaviors that will put you at risk.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Uh-huh.. That'll work for sure, just like it has, already. :roll:Originally posted by: Riprorin
Here's an even better solution: don't engage in risky behaviors that will put you at risk.
Talk's cheap, but stopping everyone from engaging in sex, protected or otherwise isn't going to happen. Meanwhile, it's a freaking disease. Viruses don't know squat about your "morals," and they could care even less.
It's a disease that can be spread by lots of behavior that would not be considered "risky." In many countries, healthy wives are infected by sex with her husband who was infected by sex with another woman (or man).
Anyone who thinks people should be denied access to a cure for a life threatening disease based on someone else's morals is a freaking mental and moral dwarf.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
What happens after 1 year?
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: Riprorin
What happens after 1 year?
This is obviously a new treatment...so it will take a while for all the results ....but....
This is indeed great news. Imagine being able to kick the plague from the latter half of the 20th century in the a$$.
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
See, I am conflicted in two ways. AIDs is a terrible disease that no one should be subjected to. On the other hand, we drastically require a reduction in population. And then I love science and solving these sorts of problems (otherwise I wouldn't signed on to do work).
Overall, my desire for the continuity of the species and a technological society takes precedence and thusly, I don't think there should be a huge push towards a cure for AIDs. One way or another, the population of human beings is going to come down to something sustainable.
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
See, I am conflicted in two ways. AIDs is a terrible disease that no one should be subjected to. On the other hand, we drastically require a reduction in population. And then I love science and solving these sorts of problems (otherwise I wouldn't signed on to do work).
Overall, my desire for the continuity of the species and a technological society takes precedence and thusly, I don't think there should be a huge push towards a cure for AIDs. One way or another, the population of human beings is going to come down to something sustainable.
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
See, I am conflicted in two ways. AIDs is a terrible disease that no one should be subjected to. On the other hand, we drastically require a reduction in population. And then I love science and solving these sorts of problems (otherwise I wouldn't signed on to do work).
Overall, my desire for the continuity of the species and a technological society takes precedence and thusly, I don't think there should be a huge push towards a cure for AIDs. One way or another, the population of human beings is going to come down to something sustainable.
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I don't want anyone to die honestly. However, what I want doesn't exactly syngerize with the state of the planet.
Originally posted by: glugglug
This may be the first time John Titor was proven wrong.....
He said there was still no cure for AIDs in 2036.
the hardest thing is saying who shoudl die first. since your a proponent of population reduction, shouldn't you do your part by removing yourself?
