HOME       >>       Science and Technology

They Will Never Find A Cure For Aids


Cerebral Stasis

By the way, how long as it been since the HIV virus has been discovered? (question to anyone)

According to this article, it was discovered as an epidemic June 5, 1981.

pixieloo

Since AIDS is a virus, there's not really a cure, because viruses don't go away. There can only be a treatment, and the same treatment doesn't work for everybody. But I believe that one day, it might be treatable.


truefusion

AIDS is not a virus, it's a syndrome. HIV is the virus. It's easy to get rid of AIDS, just get rid of all the symptoms that are associated with it. Like every disease, there's usually a lack of something. If you stop lacking in that certain area, you shouldn't have the disease anymore.[hr=noshade]And thanks, Cerebral Stasis, for answering my question.[/hr]


gameratheart

I really hope they do find a cure for HIV and AIDS, but I am in two minds about whether or not it'll happen. It just seems impossible. But then, if you're really worried about this stuff, then there is the quick answer: DON'T HAVE SEX!


darknight08

You are absolutely right. I do not mean to offend anyone with the disease, but its very unlikely to find a definite cure for something that mutates like the AIDS virus. All the vaccines and medicine being researched and developed right now is not to cure the virus....but to slow down the its progress.


Thorned Rose

Perhaps, but animals can't talk. They aren't self-aware, and thus are no more worth saving than an insect. Just today, I was trying to get out my old bicycle to go for a ride. While opening the shed, I didn't notice the wasp nest on the inside of the door. After I turned around to try to get something, I was attacked by wasps and one stung me on the left temple. I didn't hesitate to kill every one of them and destroy their nest. Why? Because wasps need not infest human dwellings, since they can live in places in the wild where we cannot. I felt no remorse for killing them, and they felt no pain or fear for being killed. The majority of animals (that are tested upon, anyway) have no real intelligence. They live their lives completely by instinct and never really realize what's going on.


Unfortunately you are wrong. I have had many 'discussions' with my mother on this topic. She is a Christian and as such believes that animals do not think, feel etc and are only here to serve mankind. Being that I am qualified in Animal Care and Husbandry I have studied a lot and read a lot of research on the subject of 'animal' intelligence and emotion. I would suggest you do the same before you mouth off about something you quite clearly are ignorant about. If you had done some research you might know that 'intelligence' is subjective - you might consider yourself to be smart but to someone else you might seem stupid. My cat is smart by cat standards so he is very intelligent but then he cannot do human mathematics. Why? It's not because he lacks intelligence, it's because he hasn't evolved the capacity to do maths. Why should he have to?! It's not necessary for his species' survival. You might also 'know' that fish don't feel pain but if you had done some reading you would actually know that research has found that fish show similar brain wave patterns and release the same chemicals into their bodies when they are harmed as humans do indicating they have a pain response i.e. they feel pain just like humans! Similar studies have been done on many other animals. If it's got nerves, it feels pain. Even trees have been shown to have a pain response.
As for animals not being able to talk - what, you expect them to be able to speak english?! They do communicate through body language and vocalisation, humans do exactly the same thing. And to think that my cats can understand when I call their names, tell them to get down, tell them to go outside etc and yet most people don't have the foggiest what my cats are trying to tell them - many animals can understand some amount of human speech and yet most humans don't remotely know what animals say - hows that for intelligence?!
Your assumption that animals are not self-aware is also unfounded. Like I said, try doing a little reading and you will find a lot of research that shows quite the opposite. Here are some articles: http://user.strato.net/crvny/sa03002.htm, http://anaheim.universitytutor.com/anaheim_sa050225-2-tutoring, http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ etc. Of course, once again, like intelligence self-awareness is subjective.
Intinct is also subjective. What many humans class as thought is in actual fact instinct. Anything that is not a learned behaviour is instinct - speech, walking, urinating, defecating, sex, smiling, the need for interaction, eating, problem solving, tool use etc etc etc - all instinctive behaviours. People might be arrogant enough to elevate themselves above other animals but the fact remains humans ARE animals.

As for no aids cure - not if Bill Gates has anything to do with it!

anjin

Look how long we have had the common cold, if hiv and aids was discovered in 81 in comparison to the common cold it will be a great deal of time before anyone becomes remotly close.


Cerebral Stasis

I really hope they do find a cure for HIV and AIDS, but I am in two minds about whether or not it'll happen. It just seems impossible. But then, if you're really worried about this stuff, then there is the quick answer: DON'T HAVE SEX!

 

You mean you have to choose between a life without sex and a gruesome death? Tough call. - Fry

 

Unfortunately you are wrong. I have had many 'discussions' with my mother on this topic. She is a Christian and as such believes that animals do not think, feel etc and are only here to serve mankind. Being that I am qualified in Animal Care and Husbandry I have studied a lot and read a lot of research on the subject of 'animal' intelligence and emotion. I would suggest you do the same before you mouth off about something you quite clearly are ignorant about.

I was simply giving my opinion for the sake of argument, not putting my foot down and proclaiming that I was completely correct.

 

If you had done some research you might know that 'intelligence' is subjective - you might consider yourself to be smart but to someone else you might seem stupid. My cat is smart by cat standards so he is very intelligent but then he cannot do human mathematics. Why? It's not because he lacks intelligence, it's because he hasn't evolved the capacity to do maths. Why should he have to?! It's not necessary for his species' survival.

Is it necessary for our survival? By "Intelligence", I meant the ability to understand that the world is more than the present and to change one's ways in order to specifically affect that. For example, a mouse who raids a farmer's oats only thinks of a need for food, while the farmer thinks of the diseases passed by said mouse, the possible loss of lifestock, and the eventual economic downfall that would ensue.

 

You might also 'know' that fish don't feel pain but if you had done some reading you would actually know that research has found that fish show similar brain wave patterns and release the same chemicals into their bodies when they are harmed as humans do indicating they have a pain response i.e. they feel pain just like humans! Similar studies have been done on many other animals. If it's got nerves, it feels pain. Even trees have been shown to have a pain response.

I never once claimed that animals did not feel pain, because I knew that they did.

 

 

As for animals not being able to talk - what, you expect them to be able to speak english?! They do communicate through body language and vocalisation, humans do exactly the same thing. And to think that my cats can understand when I call their names, tell them to get down, tell them to go outside etc and yet most people don't have the foggiest what my cats are trying to tell them - many animals can understand some amount of human speech and yet most humans don't remotely know what animals say - hows that for intelligence?!

 

I assumed that one would understand that by "language" I meant the ability to express personal ideas and opinions. True, animals talk, but, unless I'm mistaken, they don't discuss why the sky is blue or chat about their dreams. They simply express useful information, as computers do.

 

 

Your assumption that animals are not self-aware is also unfounded. Like I said, try doing a little reading and you will find a lot of research that shows quite the opposite. Here are some articles: http://user.strato.net/crvny/sa03002.htm, http://anaheim.universitytutor.com/anaheim_sa050225-2-tutoring, http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ etc. Of course, once again, like intelligence self-awareness is subjective.

Intinct is also subjective. What many humans class as thought is in actual fact instinct. Anything that is not a learned behaviour is instinct - speech, walking, urinating, defecating, sex, smiling, the need for interaction, eating, problem solving, tool use etc etc etc - all instinctive behaviours. People might be arrogant enough to elevate themselves above other animals but the fact remains humans ARE animals.

I'm not saying that animals don't have any primitive emotions or personalities, because I know that they do. As for the pidgeon thing, I hadn't been aware of that article (and had only read to the contrary thus far), although from the video, it looks to me like, during it's constant movement, the pidgeon just happened to notice the mark on it's bib by chance, rather than by realizing that it's mirror image had said mark.

 

I didn't intend to debate animal rights, in any case. I'm just saying that I think that the sacrifice of animal life is worth saving human lives, especially since the animals are not intentionally tortured or put in pain (they are simply used to harvest results in as painless a way as possible). Animals kill animals below themselves on the food chain. Since we also are animals and are pretty much at the top of the food chain, we can kill animals and not feel as though we are being any less than what we are - animals. If one debates that as the highest life form of the planet, we should simply know better, one could consider everything we do to harm animals. For example, we spray our crops, which kills or harms certain creatures, but if we did not, said creatures would eat our food and not give a second thought on the matter. If one's house becomes infested with ants, one can either kill those ants or allow them to destroy one's food. Life is all about the will and need to survive another day, and just because we have an intellectual advantage over other creatures does not mean we shouldn't use it to achieve that goal. Animals with sharp claws and teeth don't hesistate to use their advantages over us, so why should we hesistate to use our advantage (brain power) over them?

 

One cannot live life passively - it just doesn't work. In order to live, one must create and destroy. There's no way to avoid that. The difference is that we have a higher priority to guarantee the creation and continuation of our own species versus that of another species.

 

For example, cows. They live a life of bliss. We humans put them out in fields, medicate them, and guarantee their survival. In return, they give us their meat at a certain point of their lives. If they were to run free in the wild, chances are they would never reach that point on their own (or most wouldn't, in any case), yet living with humans, they are given a life of bliss, doing whatever they like, given all the food they could want. True, they have to pay a capital price at the end, but it seems to me as though it is all worthwhile.

 

Humans are, thanks to evolution, omnivores. This means that, because nature said so, we can eat both animals and plants. Eating animals the "natural way" means we run them down, rip their throat out, and then devour their corpse. These days, we have "humane" ways of killing, namely a gunshot to the head in order to kill the animal without inflicting pain. Now when it comes to tests, such as growing an ear on a rat's face, the creature does not feel pain because there is growth, not decay. In the case of vaccine testing in which a rat is given a disease and then the cure, the scientists assume that the cure will work. In the unlikely event that it is not, the animal is quickly "put out of it's misery" in order to be tested for the reason that the vaccine didn't work. Drugs aren't just randomly pumped into animals until one combination works, every experiment has to have a purpose and reasonable proof that the vaccine being tested will work. It's not an animal torture-fest. Hunting is probably much more of an activity that causes animal pain, and yet that's not illegal (and why should it be? humans, according to instinct, should be able to hunt).

 

Let's assume for a moment that bacteria can feel pain, simply for the sake of discussion. Should we stop trying to kill off bacteria to save human lives because of this? Are billions of single-celled organisms worth the lives of millions of multi-cellular ones? Chances are you think "no." Well, why not? Shouldn't bacteria have the same rights as any other living creature? What gives you the right to decide?

 

The only way to be fair is to throw away all philosophy and technology and just live like animals - no vaccines, no weapons, etc. This would not only mean that the human race as a whole would face extinction, but it would, as I have said, be a waste of the evolutionary advantage our race has been given - the ability to use technology as a tool to help us survive what we otherwise could not.


delivi

According to me they never should find a cure for AIDS, the humanity has gone crazy after sex and has lost their diginity, honour, manners and everything for this. This is the only fear that keeps most of us form entering into Illegal relationships and prostitutions.


Goth_Punk

Yes they will! After many years of reserch they wil find a cure


Cerebral Stasis

According to me they never should find a cure for AIDS, the humanity has gone crazy after sex and has lost their diginity, honour, manners and everything for this. This is the only fear that keeps most of us form entering into Illegal relationships and prostitutions.

Wait, you're saying they shouldn't find a cure because AIDS is supposed to be a plague? That's very short-sighted of you, since many completely innocent people get AIDS either from birth, from not realizing it exists (as in third-world countries), or even from unintentional contraction (i.e. partner/spouse lied or they were raped).

As for there being no cure, I'm positive that there will eventually be some kind of cure, even if it means the use of nanobots that physically destroy the virus. It will come eventually. Soon AIDS will take the course of smallpox (in being mostly extinct, I mean).

JasperIk

According to me they never should find a cure for AIDS, the humanity has gone crazy after sex and has lost their diginity, honour, manners and everything for this. This is the only fear that keeps most of us form entering into Illegal relationships and prostitutions.



People make honest mistakes, do you think someone who has HIV, or gets it...thinks "hey, i think i am going to have sex today, hopefully i will come down with something that will make my life a living hell", they don't and if they do getting HIV, is the least of my concerns for them. People can Get HIV, at anytime, from any person, no matter how many times they have sex. Its like the game on computers, where you click the squares, and try to avoid the bomb, you may end up clicking the bomb the first time around, or maybe never...or in the middle of the game.

Madkat-Z

Not to sound like one of those optimistic people, but in my opinion I do believe we will find a cure for AIDS and HIV. They said we would never find a cure for Small Pox, but we did. Same thing with Polio. However, I do think there is a cure for the problem already. I think people need to be tested more often for the virus. As long as those people who are infected don't spread it the virus will disappear. I'm not saying quarantine people is the answer to the issue. Its just that I think the main reason this has become a problem is, because of people lack in responsibility in getting tested and if they test positive for the virus to not spread it to other people. I even think people who go off and spread the virus without knowing they had it in the first place are just as bad as spreading it and know you have it. If you are planning on going off and having sex with multiple partners, then you should get tested at least once a month. If you come up positive for the virus, its your job to go and get a hold of your partners and tell them they may have the virus too and to get tested.


Cerebral Stasis

Unfortunately, AIDS, even being one of the most deadly STDs, is the only one that doesn't have to be tested for and, if one tested positive, does not have to be announced as such.


iGuest

You can all bank on there never being a cure for HIV, AIDS or cancer, at least not anytime soon. The politics are for more complicated than the science. Be logical, would Walmart make a move that would put them out of business overnight to feed or clothe their customers? Answer, NO...If the pharm companies put out a cure tonight, billion dollar industries would be extinct over night. What need would there be for all those HIV AIDS cancer fund, national cancer institute ect, the BILLIONS the pharm companies make with drug therapies...Answer is, there would be no need...This is about money no life, you really think the CEO of merk gives a **** about you? heeeeeeeeeeelllllll no it is a BUSINESSSSSSSSSSSSS

-reply by future


mbafactory

Surely, HIV is tricky, and reactions from every one is different to it, but one thing is common that is the mechanism this virus works with in the body. Science and biotechnology are chasing it constantly and there have been some really important milestones which make me optimistic, that it will be just like normal disease some day. Curable and in control. Recently there was a case in Europe in which after the bone marrow transplant the affected patient after 2 years showed no signs of presence of HIV in his body. Bone marrow transplants, neuro and nano medicines are definitely going to help out in finding a cure to this dangerous disease.


iGuest

Not all Stem Cell Research is bad.They Will Never Find A Cure For Aids

Replying to JasperIk

Not all stem cell research is bad JasperIk. Only the EMBRYONIC stemcell research is bad - which involves the destruction of a human life.There are other researches on stem cells which have produced actualcures and do not involve murdering babies. There is the ADULTstem cell research which has produced actual cures and in no way isunethical or controversial -- in no way it involves the destruction ofa human life - they take stem cells found in your skin or other partsof the body. There is also PLACENTAL stem cell research whichthey obtain out of the placenta and the embryonic cord right after thebaby is born - it is also completely ethical - no human life is harmedin any way and these stem cells have also produced actual cures. The problem is that the media does not cover these breakthroughs. They are only covering the "potencial cures"that the embryonic stem cell research could produce, which at thispoint is just hypothetical and no actual cures have been found with theactual research that has been done with embryos. On that note a kid inthe middle east that was treated with embryonic stem cells to cure sometype of spinal pathology ended getting spinal cancer from theexperimental "treatment". I don't see the need to harm human "embryos" or "blastocyst" (I call them HUMAN BEINGS because that's what they are -- I used to be one of "those"too at sosme point). And I don't care how sick or ill I get from anydisease, I would NEVER get a treatment that involves the life ofanother human being -- I could never live with myself. As faras animal research goes, I am not completely against it, but I amagainst the unethitcal treatment of animals. If you get an animal fortesting you should treat it with dignity and respect that they deserve,not some kind of inanimate object to do as you please. You should alsotreat the animals which in no way causes pain or unnecessary suffering.

-reply by Brian


iGuest

The reason it is not as harmful in Africa is because most of those people also have to deal with Sickle-Cell Anemia.  The malformed red blood cells are not as conducive to HIV transmission as normal cells are...The shape (flat, arrow like) prevents the receptor sites from being recognized by the virus.  No recognition means no replication.

 Please, try to know what you guys are talking about before you start all this talk about HIV conspiracy theories.  One person saying "no it really happened like this" should only be grounds for investigation, not full blown attacks on your governments stance on an issue.


webishqiptar

Well, I have heard about a poll in U.S where people were asked if they were afraid of AIDS. And the results told that people are no more afraid of AIDS. As far as I know AIDS is caused by a virus and is not killing people. It is killing the white blood cells, which are responsible for fighting against germs and infections. So any kind of simple infection that reaches the body is lethal. I don't know if there will be a cure for AIDS. But prevention is a good cure.


jaychant

At some point, it may become possible to eliminate HIV. But as long as we can be careful to not get it in the first place, there's no need to worry about it. One great thing about HIV is it's so easy to avoid: just don't mix blood with other people.



Pages :-

Page 1Page 2Page 3


VIEW DESKTOP VERSION REGISTERGET FREE HOSTING

Xisto.com offers Free Web Hosting to its Members for their participation in this Community. We moderate all content posted here but we cannot warrant full correctness of all content. While using this site, you agree to have read and accepted our terms of use, cookie and privacy policy. Copyright 2001-2019 by Xisto Corporation. All Rights Reserved.