Just because AIDS is a virus doesn't mean it can't be stopped. It is essential to continue to find a crue, many many lives can be saved.
Cancer is caused by a mutation in the DNA of one single cell. It's not something that is heritable in most cases. Some people do have a higher susceptibility to cancer because of certain genes, but that is only in a very few cases.
So you want to keep our gene pool clean? I assume you won't have any children then... Imagine a world, in which you have to go to city hall to get a breeding permit. "Sorry sir, you seem to have a weak heart. Allowing you to have children won't be viable for our species. Please follow that man in the white jacket to the room in the back and you will be castrated free of charge. Thank you for your assistance." "Your wife on the other hand is an excellent specimen of our species. If she'd be so kind as to follow the man in the suit there, he will introduce her to a wealthy scientist who's a male model in his spare time..."
Delta ForceI don't know how much $ they are spending on AIDS reasearch, but why don't they take some of that and put in into curing the diseases that they actually die from
Quick stop everyone! Dont waste your money on AIDS or cancer research lets spend it on research on colds and flus, thats a far more dangerous risk. You are aware AIDS is a disease that destroys your immune system aren't you, if we can cure it then there will be no need to worry about the cold as you later suggest.
, instead of trying to stop a virus, becasue they can't be stopped, only made dorment.
Old age and death is inevitable to, why do you not end your life now?
It's therefore futile to try to cure AIDS, when we can't even cure something as simple as the flu or the cold (We know how, it's just that we have so many diffrent strands of it that to give a shot with all of them wouldn't be economiclly viable).
So you say we dont know how to cure the flu or cold, but wait, now you say we do, its just not money well spent. Geeez, I wonder why they arent doing it then.
Why do they waste so much $ and time on AIDS, we need to work on cancer because that kills much faster than AIDS.
There are many different types of cancer of which vary in time needed for the cancer to become lethal. Also earlier you said you didn't die from AIDS but now you do.
Than again, isn't cancer caused by you DNA being f**ked up, either because your genetic code is messed up or you like to drink radioactive water.
Yes, I believe smokers drink radioactive water often, as well as those with alcohol problems to name but a few.
Maybe cancer is a disease that simply shouldn't be cured, because whats the point of keeping someone alive if they WILL spread the bad genes around, and mess up humanity's gene pool?
Certain types of cancer, such as colon and breast cancer, often run in families. It is only the predisposition to cancer that is inherited. Other non-genetic (e.g. environmental) factors must be present for the cancer to develop. Having a family history of cancer does not necessarily mean you will develop cancer, but does however mean that you are at a higher risk.
Sorry for going off topic there, but cancer and AIDS are kinda in the same territory.
Yeah they're both a waste on tax payers money according to you...
Several myths that need to be cleared up: First: you don't die from AIDS. You die from other diseases which have a magnified effect on you because AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome) Second: there is a strong possibility of there being a cure for AIDS. Just because it is a virus does not mean it is incurable. We already have retro-viral agents that target all viruses, and work reasonably well against AIDS. Also, more importantly, there is a strong chance of an actual cure being found for AIDS, based on the genetic immunity certain people exhibit. Third: AIDS is not a disease which is concentrated in sexually-irresponsible people. It can affect anyone, from any walk of life. This myth has been cleared up by a lot of people in this thread, so I'm not going to go into further detail. So, let's sum up... AIDS can affect anyone, even those who are careful and responsible sexually can contract it elsewhere. At this point in history we have a better chance of inventing a cure for AIDS than we have of inventing a cure for cancer. Considering the US$ 1.8 billion spent annually by the National Cancer Institute (which doesn't include other research conducted by universities and other non-Institute organizations), compared to the mere US$ 400 million spent in 2004 , we are not 'wasting' our time and money. We are obligated to help these people, as much as we are obligated to help people suffering from other diseases.
I think there should be no cure for AIDS. In a way it is a population controler.
Dr.FritzI think there should be no cure for AIDS. In a way it is a population controler.
do we really need another population controller? we already have so many! e.g., war; poverty; tyranny; religious fascists; etc... 150,000 children die per month in Africa from "Malaria". Is this population control? Have you seen infants born with AIDS? Suffering and dying horrible deaths from illnesses they shouldn't get. Fighting any threat to life - or the quality of life, is worth fighting.
We fail to use 72% of our planet and we say we are overpopulated... what bullshit, get a houseboat and live on hydroponicly grown veggies and fish, there you've just helped lessen land overpoluation by .0000000001 percent.
Okay that was to cover overpopulation posts, for those that think the money would be better speant on the cold and flu because AIDS is a virus, well, heres the fling, the cold and flu are both also viruses, so by the logic that viruses can't be killed, it'd be a waste of money to cure those aswell.
'Dr. Fritz'I think there should be no cure for AIDS. In a way it is a population controler.
You think there should be no cure for AIDS?! Oh, well then that solves it. Drop all the research, forget about saving millions (potentially billions of lives) because Dr. Fritz thinks there should be no cure! Say that again if you ever have a good friend, relative, or yourself infected with it. Tell them they're going to die- but not to worry, it's all for the sake of population control!
vladtemplarIf one believes in natural selection and evolution, then Aids patiets have to die to better the society.[/quote][quote=Dr.Fritz]I think there should be no cure for AIDS. In a way it is a population controler.
Natural selection happens by itself, without the need for this callous reasoning. Civilised societies depend on people actually holding some value for human life (which includes valuing it higher than your tax dollars).
No! I'm Spamacus!
17th June 2003
Chemix2We fail to use 72% of our planet and we say we are overpopulated... what bullshit, get a houseboat and live on hydroponicly grown veggies and fish, there you've just helped lessen land overpoluation by .0000000001 percent. Okay that was to cover overpopulation posts, for those that think the money would be better speant on the cold and flu because AIDS is a virus, well, heres the fling, the cold and flu are both also viruses, so by the logic that viruses can't be killed, it'd be a waste of money to cure those aswell.
First off, land is only one factor that can determine how large a population can grow. You could put a million people on Mars and have plenty of land to live on, but there isn't a heck of a lot of food growing down on the surface for example... As for the cold, there are just a lot of strands of the virus, it doesn't mean there is not a cure. AIDs mutates quickly, we need to find a faster way of adapting.
Hense hydroponics, fishing, farming in large dirt boxes. You don't place everybody into a foodless area, you first build up what they need, then send them there.