A Vaccination that may prevent HIV?

[Excim]

Just might be. Nothing is concrete, but they have gotten some positive results from testing!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,554783,00.html


Your thoughts?

 

[Uzor]

While it is certainly interesting, and a hopefull step in the right direction, the sample size is rather small.

Since everyone were allowed to proceed with their life as they normally would under a 3 year 6 month period, it kind of reduces the preciseness of the test.

71 of the "dummy" shot got infected, while 50 of the vaccine group got infected. Its only a 21 people difference, which can be due to many various factors, such as different lifestyles.

Additionally, it doesn't say how manygot infected within the first 6 months, year, 2 years or 3 years. For all we know the vaccine could havegiven a 100% protection the first month, and only offer a 1% protection the rest of the time the study was done.

 

[Hexx]

I dunno, would a vaccine for AIDS really do the world good? The risk of getting AIDS is what scares many people into not being full on whores for the most part.....and yes I know there's people who got infected through other means that weren't sexual (mothers passing it to babies etc). Would picking and choosing who gets the vaccine be a viable thing to do? My opinion is no, but at the same time, if a vaccine were developed, it would do a lot of good to prevent future deaths, and hopefully cure people who already have the disease....

 

[Halifirien]

I dunno, would a vaccine for AIDS really do the world good? The risk of getting AIDS is what scares many people into not being full on whores for the most part.....and yes I know there's people who got infected through other means that weren't sexual (mothers passing it to babies etc). Would picking and choosing who gets the vaccine be a viable thing to do? My opinion is no, but at the same time, if a vaccine were developed, it would do a lot of good to prevent future deaths, and hopefully cure people who already have the disease....

That's an interesting (and somewhat disturbing) point of view, wanting to keep AIDS around as a check on behavior you perceive as immoral. The faster we can eradicate this scourge, the better we'll all be.

 

[.Curjos.]

They invented a vaccination for AIDs a while back. Its around 98% effective, and its called a condom.

 

[Hexx]

That's an interesting (and somewhat disturbing) point of view, wanting to keep AIDS around as a check on behavior you perceive as immoral. The faster we can eradicate this scourge, the better we'll all be.

Oh no, I never said I "wanted" AIDS to stay around Hali, on the contrary, and hell, I'd be a hipocrite if I were to call wanton sex immoral (to each their own really). I'm a religious guy, but I feel like maybe AIDS was natures way of population control and such. I agree that the view itself is disturbing, but if and when we cure AIDS, whats to keep nature from developing a new way to kill us off? Who knows, that "method" might be even worse, and even more contagious, than AIDS.

They invented a vaccination for AIDs a while back. Its around 98% effective, and its called a condom.

A condom is prevention, vaccination both prevents, and helps kill off, said infection =P but yes condoms are highly effective, yet not everyone gets AIDS through sexual intercourse as I'm sure you're aware of.

 

[Halifirien]

Oh no, I never said I "wanted" AIDS to stay around Hali, on the contrary, and hell, I'd be a hipocrite if I were to call wanton sex immoral (to each their own really). I'm a religious guy, but I feel like maybe AIDS was natures way of population control and such.

Glad you cleared that up. It sounded a lot like the boilerplate "AIDS is God's way of punishing gay people" spiel.

 

[.Curjos.]

A condom is prevention, vaccination both prevents, and helps kill off, said infection =P but yes condoms are highly effective, yet not everyone gets AIDS through sexual intercourse as I'm sure you're aware of.

In countries like Africa where AIDS is a huge problem, the root problem is people having unprotected sex. While your point is valid for developed countries, I don't think it can apply to where the disease is at its worse, which is what I was refering to - although I should have pointed that out when I posted.

Oh no, I never said I "wanted" AIDS to stay around Hali, on the contrary, and hell, I'd be a hipocrite if I were to call wanton sex immoral (to each their own really). I'm a religious guy, but I feel like maybe AIDS was natures way of population control and such. I agree that the view itself is disturbing, but if and when we cure AIDS, whats to keep nature from developing a new way to kill us off? Who knows, that "method" might be even worse, and even more contagious, than AIDS.

I'll probably get bashed pretty hard for saying this, as it could be percieved as, like Hali said, immoral (which it probably is, but its realistic none-the-less), but diseases like HIV/AIDS in countries such as Africa actually play an important role. By giving them a vaccination, it won't stop them from having unprotected sex and they'll continue to have children at unsustainable rate. It might prevent AIDS, but in the long run it'll cause bigger problems.

In my opinion, the best prevention for diseases for such as AIDS is by educating people of the dangers of unprotected sex, and doing as much as humanly possible to influence people in countries where HIV/AIDS is a big problem to wear condoms and other forms of contraception.

To wrap my point up, I think a HIV/AIDS vaccine would be a great thing, but I think too many people would see it as a license to go out and have unprotected sex. Alot of people would see it as a form of contraception, which it isn't - it's a vaccine.

 

[Hexx]

Glad you cleared that up. It sounded a lot like the boilerplate "AIDS is God's way of punishing gay people" spiel.

Oh no, its a terrible disease hands down, but if you look at how nature works, it always finds a way to handle population control (i.e. Bubonic plague).

In countries like Africa where AIDS is a huge problem, the root problem is people having unprotected sex. While your point is valid for developed countries, I don't think it can apply to where the disease is at its worse, which is what I was refering to - although I should have pointed that out when I posted.



I'll probably get bashed pretty hard for saying this, as it could be percieved as, like Hali said, immoral (which it probably is, but its realistic none-the-less), but diseases like HIV/AIDS in countries such as Africa actually play an important role. By giving them a vaccination, it won't stop them from having unprotected sex and they'll continue to have children at unsustainable rate. It might prevent AIDS, but in the long run it'll cause bigger problems.

In my opinion, the best prevention for diseases for such as AIDS is by educating people of the dangers of unprotected sex, and doing as much as humanly possible to influence people in countries where HIV/AIDS is a big problem to wear condoms and other forms of contraception.

To wrap my point up, I think a HIV/AIDS vaccine would be a great thing, but I think too many people would see it as a license to go out and have unprotected sex. Alot of people would see it as a form of contraception, which it isn't - it's a vaccine.

Yes thats what I was tryin to say (not very eloquent at times) but yeah thing is that it leads to other people deciding who does and does not get the vaccine and thats just another problem in and of itself. I for one wouldnt want to be a person having to make a decision like that >.<

 

[Zyndara]

I don't know of a single person who would be like... Hey AIDS is preventable, I'ma go out and bang everything that moves. Vaccines have side effects. Some of them debilitating. They are lesser things to deal with than the illness itself, but they are not to be taken lightly at all.

As for your points about Africa - They are worried about eating and living from day to day. I'm sure they're not real worried about spending money on rubbers. It sounds all well and good "well if they wouldn't practice risky behavior, they wouldn't get sick." But be honest with yourself - people are going to have sex. Procreation is human nature. A huge part of the existing AIDS population there is children stricken with it because they were conceived with parents ill with it. Should those kids have to suffer for their parents choices? The bottom line is, and this is historically true... You can teach safe sex and you can preach abstinence, but where there is poverty, there will always be disease. Is it sad? Yes. But it's reality. So do you say "well I guess we just let them die because they didn't have safe sex?" Or do you provide a vaccine so that maybe the next generation of those families (if there is one) won't be dead before they're 10?

Not to mention, there's countless people who got sick from tainted blood before doctors really knew what AIDS was, and there's people who *did* protect themselves and the condom ripped, or any number of many other possibilities other than people being either ignorant or suicidal. A vaccine is not an excuse to be reckless. It is a way to protect yourself and be responsible, like a condom only more permanent.

 

[Celvantes]

I'm of the opinion that if the vaccination is good enough, and there are a limited amount of strains of the disease (i.e. polio vs the common cold), that we should do to every virus out there what we did to smallpox and polio.

 

[.Curjos.]

A huge part of the existing AIDS population there is children stricken with it because they were conceived with parents ill with it. Should those kids have to suffer for their parents choices? The bottom line is, and this is historically true... You can teach safe sex and you can preach abstinence, but where there is poverty, there will always be disease. Is it sad? Yes. But it's reality. So do you say "well I guess we just let them die because they didn't have safe sex?" Or do you provide a vaccine so that maybe the next generation of those families (if there is one) won't be dead before they're 10?

First off, a vaccine and a cure are different, so anyone with AIDS will pass it onto their children anyways.

Secondly, one of the major reasons that poverty is an issue in Africa is because of the huge population, a population that AIDS doesn't even keep in check. By solving the problem of disease, you're creating another, bigger problem. And its not necessarily about having safe sex, its about monogomy. If two people that aren't infected with HIV have a monogomous relationship then the risk is significantly lower (but not impossible) of catching the virus.

Also, although undoubtedly economic issues are a factor in the reason that contreptives aren't used (although a vaccine would also cost money), from what I've read condoms aren't used because of religious reasons.

I'm not saying the solution is not having sex - I'm saying the solution is trying to promote monogomous or otherwise safe sex, and trying to control the population.

There isn't any point fixing a problem that causes worse problems. Death, however sad it is, is still needed for balance. The more people that are born, the more people that need to die. It might be morbid or seemingly cruel, but thats the way it has always been, and always will be.

 

[Hexx]

I don't know of a single person who would be like... Hey AIDS is preventable, I'ma go out and bang everything that moves. Vaccines have side effects. Some of them debilitating. They are lesser things to deal with than the illness itself, but they are not to be taken lightly at all.

As for your points about Africa - They are worried about eating and living from day to day. I'm sure they're not real worried about spending money on rubbers. It sounds all well and good "well if they wouldn't practice risky behavior, they wouldn't get sick." But be honest with yourself - people are going to have sex. Procreation is human nature. A huge part of the existing AIDS population there is children stricken with it because they were conceived with parents ill with it. Should those kids have to suffer for their parents choices? The bottom line is, and this is historically true... You can teach safe sex and you can preach abstinence, but where there is poverty, there will always be disease. Is it sad? Yes. But it's reality. So do you say "well I guess we just let them die because they didn't have safe sex?" Or do you provide a vaccine so that maybe the next generation of those families (if there is one) won't be dead before they're 10?

Not to mention, there's countless people who got sick from tainted blood before doctors really knew what AIDS was, and there's people who *did* protect themselves and the condom ripped, or any number of many other possibilities other than people being either ignorant or suicidal. A vaccine is not an excuse to be reckless. It is a way to protect yourself and be responsible, like a condom only more permanent.

I seriously understand your point of view here Zyn, but creating a vaccine may in fact open a can of worms and bring about a whole new set of issues. As it is, this planet is beggining to suffer from over-crowding, so in turn, nature comes up with a way to clear up that over-crowding. AIDS, cancer, we as people killing each other, are all ways in which this planet keeps us in check, and as bad as it sounds, its the truth.

As I stated earlier, there are people who got AIDS from tainted blood, or from having it passed on from their mother after conception, so should they (who either lead monogamous lives, or just never had sex in the first place) have to pay the ultimate price? No, I personally dont think so, but just as it's not fair to them to have to die, why should future generations be forced to maybe have to endure some other, possibly worse, disease?

 

[Halifirien]

As it is, this planet is beggining to suffer from over-crowding, so in turn, nature comes up with a way to clear up that over-crowding. AIDS, cancer, we as people killing each other, are all ways in which this planet keeps us in check, and as bad as it sounds, its the truth.

It's also a fatalistic and nonsensical reason to try and end a form of human suffering. What's the point of possessing human intelligence if we don't use it to improve conditions? If we can create a vaccine for AIDS or cure cancer or any other nifty diseases that afflict us, we should do it and not look back. We're not running out of space yet. Not even close.

The planet itself isn't "suffering." The planet doesn't know we're here. We may screw up environmental conditions to the point where we can't survive, but the planet will go on without us like it did the millions of years before we came on the scene.

 

[Zyndara]

First off, a vaccine and a cure are different, so anyone with AIDS will pass it onto their children anyways.

Secondly, one of the major reasons that poverty is an issue in Africa is because of the huge population, a population that AIDS doesn't even keep in check. By solving the problem of disease, you're creating another, bigger problem. And its not necessarily about having safe sex, its about monogomy. If two people that aren't infected with HIV have a monogomous relationship then the risk is significantly lower (but not impossible) of catching the virus.

Also, although undoubtedly economic issues are a factor in the reason that contreptives aren't used (although a vaccine would also cost money), from what I've read condoms aren't used because of religious reasons.

I'm not saying the solution is not having sex - I'm saying the solution is trying to promote monogomous or otherwise safe sex, and trying to control the population.

There isn't any point fixing a problem that causes worse problems. Death, however sad it is, is still needed for balance. The more people that are born, the more people that need to die. It might be morbid or seemingly cruel, but thats the way it has always been, and always will be.

I'm aware of how a vaccine works. I am not referring to the people already infected. No, you can't save the ones that have it. What you can do is vaccinate healthy people now so that future generations aren't afflicted with this disease. Condoms may not be used because of religious reasons, the same can be said for birth control. But the point is it's not like here in the good ol' USofA where you can go to any number of places and get a handful of free condoms or damn near free or subsidized birth control. Even if they wanted to, these resources are not available to them. Point blank.

Also, unfortunately, monogamy is a dying concept in the world we live in. Yes there are people who are still monogamous (I happen to be one of them), but in the context of the whole world, many people aren't. If they were, the divorce rate would not be over 50%. You can preach monogamy, but in a male-centric society such as in Africa where your virility and family line is affirmed by the amount of offspring you produce (specifically sons), you aren't going to find much success.

I seriously understand your point of view here Zyn, but creating a vaccine may in fact open a can of worms and bring about a whole new set of issues. As it is, this planet is beggining to suffer from over-crowding, so in turn, nature comes up with a way to clear up that over-crowding. AIDS, cancer, we as people killing each other, are all ways in which this planet keeps us in check, and as bad as it sounds, its the truth.

I hear you but I guess my feeling on it is, you fight the demons you can. There will *always* be a cancer or an AIDS, or some new super-flu or SARS. Germs and viruses are getting more powerful and more resistant to medication every day. There is enough famine and disease in the world to go around, and that won't change. So you save the lives you can and let nature take care of the rest. To me a human life is worth fighting for - I can't get behind the idea of "oh that's too bad, let them die and make space for the rest of us." It's a little Ebenezer Scrooge to me.

 

[.Curjos.]

I'm of the opinion that if the vaccination is good enough, and there are a limited amount of strains of the disease (i.e. polio vs the common cold), that we should do to every virus out there what we did to smallpox and polio.

Until a cure is found for AIDS, theres no way to eliminate the disease short of finding every single last person who has it, and kill them. And scientists are doubtful they'll ever find a cure for AIDS.

It's also a fatalistic and nonsensical reason to try and end a form of human suffering. What's the point of possessing human intelligence if we don't use it to improve conditions? If we can create a vaccine for AIDS or cure cancer or any other nifty diseases that afflict us, we should do it and not look back. We're not running out of space yet. Not even close.

In developed contries, we have the intelligence to cure and vacciante the diseases, and we all have the intelligence to control our population. If you look over history, you'll see at times where the population drops having children becomes more fashionable and more people do it, but in a world like today it is normal to have fewer children. Africa is an example of a nation that can't control its population, so why add fuel to the fire? It would be more imoral to give them a cure than it would to just leave them to their own devices.

Fundamentally as humans were are still animals - just because we are of higher intelligence than other species doesn't make us any more important, and doesn't mean that the basic laws of nature - "survival of the fittest", in this case - shouldn't apply. The best (I'm saying best, not perfect) prevention of HIV is to not have sex with multiple partners - something that Africans apparently don't have the intelligence to do so. In other, developed countries, AIDS exists but is hardly even a problem - around 0.1 > 0.5% of a population suffer from AIDS. So yeah, reducing that figure to a 0% would be a good thing. But in countries like Africa where over 15% of the population is infected and therefore over 15% of the population are being killed by AIDS, it would be disasterous.

The kindest thing that any developed country to do for developing countries such as Africa, would be to call off any debts and leave nature to take its course; whether that means them all dying, or it means them developing the intelligence to cope with the issues of their problems, one of which is disease.

Also, anyone who thinks that death shouldn't exist is, in my opinion, is extremely short-sighted and bordering on being deluded. What kind of place would be if everyone suddenly stopped dying?

 

[Lecan]

I find it ironic that for YEARS some of the biggest goals of medical science were Curing HIV/AIDS, or at least finding an effective prevention measure not reliant on a spur of the moment decision (ie: Similar to the way children are vaccinated against a plethora of diseases when they are born/shortly thereafter), and YET, here we have people arguing over whether or not it would be moral to save (or at least prevent the deaths of) several million lives.

I'm not sure what that says about society, but when you have to argue over whether it is a good decision to prevent the deaths of millions...I'm not sure that's a society I want to live in.

All the other nonsense aside, the "problems that could arise", are more or less insignificant compared to the good that could be done. Not to mention, "Leaving to their own devices" is just as effective a measure of "population control" WITH the vaccine.

In the case of the whole Africa argument, even if these people are vaccinated and start having children like mad, starvation/overpopulation will take care of it. So being left to their own devices, nature will still sort things out.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there ever SHOULD be an argument over whether or not saving lives is immoral.

In fact, I don't like where the whole thought process leads us. First we're deciding who gets what life saving vaccine, then we're talking about population control...we are sheep enough as it is, we don't need to be turned into cattle as well, Soylent green and all. Hate to godwin the thread and all, but ya know who else tried the whole population control thing. Not saying this is the same thing, but the argument is similar enough in my opinion, at the very least enough that it is somewhat unsettling to think about.

Interesting discussion though.

 

[.Curjos.]

What ever the case, its pointless arguing with people who are blinded by their inability to cope with the harsh realities of life.

Providing a 100% effective vaccine agaisnt HIV is ever developed and given to nations stricken by poverty, if anything its a waste of money. Nature will find another way to kill off the ludicrously huge population. As Africa won't pay for the vaccines, other countries will spend a fortune giving them charity instead of pouring money into something that could actually benefit their own. The sad thing is that no one will ever learn, and pay even more money to fix the next problem which will go on to lead more and the problem will never be fixed.

Instead of wasting money on charity, it would be alot more beneficial for the countries to spend money things such as cancer research and fix the problems that they have before trying to fix the problems of others. Its ridiculous that developed countries pay money to get save third world countries, when poverty exists in their own.

 

[Halifirien]

The kindest thing that any developed country to do for developing countries such as Africa, would be to call off any debts and leave nature to take its course; whether that means them all dying, or it means them developing the intelligence to cope with the issues of their problems, one of which is disease.

I'm glad you're not in charge of foreign policy. Forgiving debt, I can understand. Standing back and letting everyone die of starvation and disease when you have the power to do something about it? No.

 

[Xalioniaf]

What ever the case, its pointless arguing with people who are blinded by their inability to cope with the harsh realities of life.

Providing a 100% effective vaccine agaisnt HIV is ever developed and given to nations stricken by poverty, if anything its a waste of money. Nature will find another way to kill off the ludicrously huge population. As Africa won't pay for the vaccines, other countries will spend a fortune giving them charity instead of pouring money into something that could actually benefit their own. The sad thing is that no one will ever learn, and pay even more money to fix the next problem which will go on to lead more and the problem will never be fixed.

Instead of wasting money on charity, it would be alot more beneficial for the countries to spend money things such as cancer research and fix the problems that they have before trying to fix the problems of others. Its ridiculous that developed countries pay money to get save third world countries, when poverty exists in their own.

I think it's something not many people like talking about, but someone had to say it. A very unpopular set of opinions, but ones that I have to agree with.