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 ...
This reminds me of a South Park episode two weeks ago:
the cure for AIDS was discovered by examining Magic Johnson’s lifestyle- and they found that it takes exposure to large sums of money to cure AIDS.
Really? How would you frame a disease that has already killed 25 million people, the equivalent of two of Hitler's Holocausts. Somewhere around 40 million people are currently infected -- most will die of the disease -- and 12 million children in sub-Saharan Africa alone are orphans because their parents have died of AIDS. Maybe that's not a moral test to you, and maybe you'd like to visit the sins of the parents on those 12 million innocent children, but if that's the case, you and I have a starkly different conception of morality.
There's no need to be wasting money finding a cure for something people could stop dead in its tracks with a change in their behavior.
The same way we could stop lung cancer and heart disease dead in their tracks by changing behavior? Why is HIV/AIDS different?
Probably because of the GLBT agenda to make their lifestyles, which predispose them to a fatal disease, socially, morally, and physically mainstream; this agenda is foisted on people's children in schools. If you think that there is no anger directed toward the GLBT communities because of this, you are mistaken.
If smokers and fat people pushed their lifestyles on school kids, imagine the anger.
It's clear that you'd like someone to admit being bigoted against the GLBT lifestyle, or "catch" some poor poster in a statement that indicates to you they are bigoted. What are you going to do, if that happens? Jump all over them?
I think the biggest push should be on prevention: educating people about HIV/AIDS and about how they can prevent or limit transmission, just as I agree we should teach kids to eat right, exercise and warn them about the dangers of smoking.
But any time you have 40 million already infected, for whom that news is too late, I think you have to do something more to help find treatments and/or a cure. We do that for people suffering from other preventable diseases -- like lung cancer, the common cold and heart disease -- and we do it for HIV/AIDS. I see nothing wrong in that.
You know the answer to your question, you're just looking for a fight.
I think you're either being just slightly paranoid here or you're mistaking me for someone else. When have I ever talked about the "GLBT lifestyle?"
Any idea how much money is devoted to research for a CURE for lung cancer, vs a CURE for HIV?
I have news for you: HIV outranks them all. Why? What’s makes the sexual lifestyle choice more “special” than the other diseases, like, for instance, breast cancer?
No, I think he's already done that.
It's clear that he speaks from a morally superior position, you see.
Are you really that clueless?
I don't give heart disease and lung cancer to others by my lifestyle choices.
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.