AIDS VACCINE WORKS!!!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

KidViciou$

Diamond Member
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
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Here's an even better solution: don't engage in risky behaviors that will put you at risk.
Uh-huh.. That'll work for sure, just like it has, already. :roll:

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 their husbands who were infected by sex with other women (or men). You can know for damned sure you won't stop all sex between young, hormone stoked teens.

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.
 

KidViciou$

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,998
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Here's an even better solution: don't engage in risky behaviors that will put you at risk.
Uh-huh.. That'll work for sure, just like it has, already. :roll:

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.

easy harve, i think that rip is finally being logical about this issue, read the discussions we've had
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Thanks. I wasn't ripping hard on Rip. I was just pointing out the impracticality of thinking that relying only on telling people not to engage in risky behavior would solve the whole problem. It won't because it's impossible to stop all of it. That's why I said anyone (NOT Rip) who thinks it can, or thinks that helping any victim with an available cure, is not thinking straight.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,521
600
126
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$$.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
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$$.

Indeed.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
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.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Abstenence is a sure fire way to avoid STDs, but I just use celibacy, and monogamy. BTW I don't do it out of any moral compunction. I do it out of love and respect to my girlfriend, and avoidance of STDs. Even if you stop people from having sex, you have not saved the soul. So any religious motive effectively goes out the window. You can stop me from doing alot of things, but you can never change my mind.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
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.

May be a bit Off Topic however....

Your wish will come true. I just think it'll have to do with the enviornment and not so much just a single pestilence such as HIV/AIDS. The ecosystem will not support us much longer. And we will do something very similiar to the Mayans, and the we'll leave this lifestyle, and find new ways to survive. But not until some disaster drastically reduces the population. If you have a box of ten mice, and put in food enough for ten. They will keep the population at ten, give or take a couple. If you increase the food to enough for fifteen, the mice will also increase their population accordingly. If you then suddenly drop the food supply down to enough for five, most will die off, and the mice will approximate a population accordingly. Too bad humans aren't as smart as mice.

 

theblackbox

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2004
1,650
11
81
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.

but aids and its ARCS are too slow to cull the population, thats where the filoviruses like ebola step in, fast burn, hard hitting, and then it's gone again. It can selectively manage the population.
 

dannybin1742

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2002
2,335
0
0
just watch, give it 5-10 years, their baselines will rise, they always do even on cocktails that keep the virus in check. also undetectable levels of virus mean less than 60 viruses/ml of blood

looks promising, but remeber this is aids, its a retro virus, its inherent reverse transcriptase makes many errors during each replicaion, evolution alone will allow it to over come this at some point, also i think the most promising treatments are RNAi based or miRNA based

RNA like proteins folds, using SELEX you can raise a large number of RNAi sequences that have super high binding affinities quickly allowing for quick changes in formula when a new strain of HIV arises in the body

you also have to remember that AIDS infects some of the very cells that the body uses to fight viral infections, antibodies the body makes don't work becuase of high glycosylation of the aids envelope proteins that bind cd4+, a better way to fight aids is to block receptors like CCR5 which there is currently being worked on
 

KidViciou$

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,998
0
0
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.

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?
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
I don't want anyone to die honestly. However, what I want doesn't exactly syngerize with the state of the planet.
 

KidViciou$

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,998
0
0
i agree and see the need for population reduction, however that is impossible with people following religions that preach to conquer the earth since it was made for us humans

that and religions liek catholocism that actually say condoms and birth control are just as bad as abortion, leading many catholic families to have more than 2 children

i can't believe they consider sperms and eggs to be humans
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,270
0
0
AFAIK, AIDS integrates itself into your immune system. Basically, once it's in, it's in, and you're never getting rid of it.

You can only stop the proliferation of AIDS, you cannot remove it from your body.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
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.



I'm actually with ya on this one. I think the solution relies on the concious choice of millions not to procreate, and if they do, limit themselves to one child. There doesn't need to be any "culling." I just think we are trying to wring too much out of this planet.
 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
I think this title is a little misleading. Traditional vaccines prevent infections, in this case, the person remains infected but immune activity against the virus is increased. The person is still infected, but the person's immune system is able to manage the infection now.

Of course this is good news, but it won't put a stop to the AIDS epidemic, only slow it down. Supposedly at this point in time, on a numerical basis, HIV/AIDS is the worst epidemic the world has ever seen, even worse than the plague of the middle ages.
 

KidViciou$

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,998
0
0
well the title is appropriate because it does prevent aids, it halts hiv in it's tracks and prevents aids from occurring. it doesn't however make one immune to aids
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
81
This may be the first time John Titor was proven wrong.....

He said there was still no cure for AIDs in 2036.
 

Rogue

Banned
Jan 28, 2000
5,774
0
0
To go back to something Chris Rock said many years ago that still rings true today, the drug companies aren't in it for the cure, they're in it for the money.

Pretty soon, people are going to be like, "Hey man, I noticed you weren't at work yesterday, what's up?"

"Ah man, my AIDS was actin' up, but I took some Robitussin and it's all good!"

 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
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.

HAHAHAHAHA funny~!

Either way I dont beleive in Titor and hopefully he will be talked about nothing once this US civil war doesn't erupt :p
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,163
136
I doubt drug companies would cover the cost. They would wonder why you think you need such a vaccine. And no doubt a vaccine would lead to a false sense of "anything goes", send in the naked midgets.

I could see people like Bill Gates and other billionaires funding vaccine programs in third world countries where hiv runs ramped.

And everyone knows hiv was a government created virus created in a lab after WWII during the cold war era to play war games. Then someone had the bright idea to use it against the less desirables in society. No doubt given the go ahead by some past republican president.
So if a vaccine really worked, the government would just create something new and send it down the pipeline...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.