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 ...
You haven't. You're demanding to know why HIV research is different than lung cancer research, waiting for someone else to bring it up. Okay, I did.
No I don't. Lot's of diseases are preventable. Obviously people should take steps to prevent preventable diseases -- nobody's going to argue with you on that. But why treat AIDS differently on FR than lung cancer, heart disease, or, frankly, mesothelioma (a nearly 100% preventable disease that you can avoid by simply not inhaling asbestos fibers)?
” maybe you’d like to visit the sins of the parents on those 12 million innocent children, but if that’s the case”
Unfortunately the sins of the parents already visited these poor innocent children when the parents CHOSE a lifestyle that
my goodness, There is only one thing that I CAN DO to help someone KEEP FROM GETTING AIDS at this point...
TELL THEM TO STAY away from that ACT that causes it!
Now when we have a person who CHOOSES not to and gets AIDS WE will take care of the innocent children. THERE IS not fault on us. nor will I take someones attitude that it is my fault.
Ah, the morally superior GLBT, rainbow position. Yes, of course.
Huh? Maybe you should instead respond to what I'm actually saying, instead of what you think I'm thinking about saying, but not saying, and waiting for someone else to say. Parsing your comments is giving me a headache. And for the record, I don't know anything about HIV research vs. cancer research, nor what point you're trying to make.
No surprise either.
So let me get this straight... you're accusing me (and, presumably, the President) of being GLBT (which I assume is a code word for "gay") because we take HIV/AIDS seriously? Uh... ok. Have fun with that.
The vast majority of HIV cases STILL occur in homosexual males. Homosexual males want society to educate schoolchildren in the lifestyle, want the parents to accept, fund, and approve the education of their children in the lifestyle, and want society as a whole to ignore the severe physical and mental consequences of the “gay” lifestyle.
You don't get the common cold through deviant sexual behavior. So here's the solution. Don't bugger (or be buggered by) other men...
You’re the one demanding to know why HIV is different from all other diseases, here on FR.
You know the answer, you just want to get in a fight. That’s trolling.
Not sure why that's relevant. The cost is the same, and taxpayers pay for heart disease and cancer research even though they're not transmissible. But, if you'd like, go look at common colds which you do pass on to others by your lifestyle choices. Colds may not usually kill, but they have a devastating economic impact.
“But why treat AIDS differently on FR than lung cancer,”
You are WAY OFF on this!
My Mother died of lung cancer, NEVER SMOKED IN HER LIFE!!!
THERE ARE MANY causes of cancer and heart disease not related to life style.
Can you SAY THAT ABOUT AIDS???
I see. It’s for the chiiilllldruuunn.
There’s still no excuse for the waste of time and resources to try to find a *cure* for a disease that can simply be stopped by the infected themselves, by lifestyle choices.
It’s totally reprehensible that they would demand a cure, but insist on continuing a behavior that they know will result in the deaths of others without it.
They should be charged with murder, cause that’s what they’re doing.
No, I didn’t accuse you or the president of anything.
Funding for HIV far outstrips any other lifestyle cure research. And lately, the demands from male homosexuals to stop the blood donation “discrimination” against them, despite the very real risks of transmitting HIV to uncounted innocents, is looking pretty suspicious.
And, can you tell me where I ever agreed with President Bush on everything?
Correct. You said I was making some point of analyzing AIDS research or some such, which I wasn't, and then accused me of being gay.
You know the answer, you just want to get in a fight.
No, actually, Judy, I don't. That's why I asked the question.
Not sure why that's relevant.
Metmom, if he doesn't see the difference, its a lost cause. Money spent on AIDS is a waste of money. The cure is already known.
Your wrong on all three.
I wish I had Petronski's laughing dog image to put here. That's hilarious!
To be blunt, you’re going a long way to justify putting your penis in someone’s anus.
SHOW ME SOME DATA! TROLL
No, you accused us of "adopting the LGBT/Rainbow position" (which position would that be? prone?) and accused me of secretly working to advance the "LGBT agenda," which, to my untrained ear, sounded awfully close to accusing President Bush and me of being gay. If treating HIV/AIDS seriously makes you gay, there are an awful lot of gay people out there...
Gee, Judith Anne, you accused him of being gay? I looked but didn’t see that. Where did that happen?
That never stopped a die-hard liberal.
Why do you keep lying about her?
I didn’t accuse him or the President of anything. I guess I’m allowed to disagree, but maybe not. I’ll have to check my GLBT diplo protocol.
BTW, Welcome to FR. :D
“Typical liberal victim mentality at work.”
Give him hell, metmom. Like always, you’re speaking for the majority of us here at FR.
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.