Skip to comments.Vaccine Failure Means Setback in AIDS Fight
Posted on 03/21/2008 5:39:05 AM PDT by metmom
The two-decade search for an AIDS vaccine is in crisis after two field tests of the most promising contender not only did not protect people from the virus but may actually have put them at increased risk of becoming infected, The Washington Post reported.
Experts are questioning the overall strategy and scientific premises of the nearly $500 million in AIDS vaccine research funded annually by the government after the two field tests were halted last September and seven other trials of AIDS vaccines have either been stopped or put off indefinitely.
The recently closed studies, STEP and Phambili, were halted when it became clear the STEP study was futile and possibly harmful.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Oh yeah? Let's look at lung cancer for starters. Over 90% of lung cancer cases occur among tobacco smokers. That makes lung cancer an almost completely preventable disease. So no, I'm not wrong. Source.
Thank you Judith Anne!
Gosh, I thought we were talking about HIV research, and trying to find out if there were any anti-homosexual bigots out there somewhere....
The funding for HIV research FAR outstrips the funding for lung cancer research, in spite of all the tobacco settlement billions.
So, I guess that makes HIV “special,” as a lifestyle choice disease. Any idea why? I’m just curious.
It's Arthur Ashe's fault that he needed a transfusion. He should have lived a lifestyle where he didn't need a transfusion.
Well, my ever-cordial newbie FRiend, for starters, 90% of lung cancer cases occur among smokers. Lung cancer is a preventable disease -- just as you're not likely to get HIV if you don't have sex with someone who is HIV+, you're also not likely to get lung cancer if you don't smoke. And if you do still get lung cancer even though you don't smoke (that other 10%), it's probably because you've inhaled asbestos fibers or radon or some other completely avoidable carcinogen.
So yes, lung cancer and HIV/AIDS are both avoidable diseases. So what?
It’s “special” for the very reason I stated.
The essence of “liberalism” is the removal (at others’ expense) of consequences for behavior, especially sexual behavior. In fact the ONLY individual freedom that the left supports is the freedom to rub your jubblies wherever you damn well please with no consequences.
AIDS has no cure, and therefore, has no way to make others pay to alleviate the consequences. They ARE trying, though, through, as you say, an inordinate amount of tax payer funded research into a “cure”.
And don’t you just love how smokers are restricted from practicing their lifestyle choice anywhere it might even slightly impact others, while GLBT demand acceptance, approval and MORE FUNDING from the government for their lifestyle choices, no matter who is impacted?
Maybe that's what you've been talking about -- I've really never been sure -- but that's not what I've been talking about. Is there someone else you're mistaking me for?
Why should we fund HIV research with tax dollars at a vastly higher rate than lung cancer? Or heart disease? Or diabetes?
Something seems disproportionate here....Why should HIV research get all the money?
Ok, I'll just lay it right out there. I'm a female, I'm a smoker. I DELIBERATELY won't buy anything that is breast cancer pink. I'm SO sick of hearing about breast cancer! Yes, it's horrible. We get it. But it isn't the only disease on the planet.
I didn't complain about money. To study and work on the AIDS virus is valuable in what information it brings. The same applies to various cancers. What I object to is the high moral outrage, the blame to society, that WE haven't conquered AIDS. It's the attitude that WE aren't doing enough, we don't care enough, and we're horrible bigoted people for not throwing every cent we have into it.
If you're saying that you think the government spends a disproportionate amount of money on AIDS research, that's a reasonable argument and there's evidence to support it and, frankly, I agree with you.
If someone wants to argue that the government has no role in medical research, that's certainly a legitimate principled libertarian position.
Others appear to be arguing that because the biggest factor in transmitting HIV/AIDS in the US is anal sex, followed by shared needles, that there shouldn't be any research into AIDS. That's where I differ.
“It’s Arthur Ashe’s fault that he needed a transfusion. He should have lived a lifestyle where he didn’t need a transfusion.”
I understand what you are trying to say. There are also children who get HIV from a mother who has the disease.
There are drug addicts who get the disease through needle sharing.
BUT EVERYONE of these cases WOULD NOT HAPPEN if the lifestyle had not started this. ALL cases go back to the life style that created HIV.
THIS Disease would end and innocent lives saved IF people would STOP pretending differently or using excuses to keep the disease going.
THIS IS NOT an attack on Gays. NO WAY
It is an ATTACK on HIV and the horrible destruction it causes.
Because we spend way too much money per capita on it than we should. Homosexuality is an abomination to God. Homosexuality is being pushed on our kids as if it is normal. My sister has a friend in the CDC, she says the disease will never be cured.
Oh, okay, let's go back to your first post on this thread, and just check that out.
Funny, but most diseases are preventable by self-control. As far as dollar impact on the economy goes, the Common Cold beats HIV/AIDS by a mile, and yet something like 90% of all cold cases could be prevented if people simply washed their hands more often. Yet whenever we have a cold thread, we don't have self righteous moralists lambasting those of us stupid ones who occasionally get colds. Maybe you should spend less time casting stones and more time thinking up solutions to one of the great moral tests of our time. 11 posted on 03/21/2008 5:55:47 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You appear to contradict yourself. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Which "self-righteous moralists" were you referring to?
This mindset of spending so much for a cure is equivalent to telling people not to bother washing their hands to prevent colds, we’ll just find a cure for colds. Or telling people not to bother quitting smoking, or watching what they eat, because we’ll just simply find a *cure* for whatever afflicts them.
Then all the blame for the consequences is on the people who didn’t find the cure. It absolves people of personal responsibility. Besides, with all those other diseases, we already ARE advising lifestyle choices, something that isn’t happening with the AIDS/HIV issue.
So what happens next? Say a vaccine is discovered? The next step would be making it mandatory for the entire population just because some might at some point engage in risky behavior? Or become the victim of unfortunate circumstances? Just like what is happening with the HPV vaccine?
Those infected with AIDS/HIV have a moral responsibility to stop their behavior that they KNOW will result in the deaths of others and stop shifting the blame for that on anyone else who hasn’t found a cure.
But moral behavior is something the GLBT community is not known for, so I wouldn’t expect this level of responsibility from them.
Spend half the research money on some programs that change the behavior, or, better yet, let the consequences for the behavior run their course,
and you’d see much better results in reducing the incidence of AIDS and HIV.
And the band played on.....
I am a widow for one year, I am a retired nurse, I have not been to a bar in over 35 years. Your comment was offensive to me.
If smokers and the families of smokers were on tv demanding a cure, and trying to make you feel like a vicious, unfeeling bigot for not donating enough, not caring enough, don't tell me you wouldn't suggest that people stop smoking.