HIV cured?

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

fact, condoms are ineffective in protecting against the hiv virus. i've heard doctors compare it to trying to stop a golfball with a basketball net. as far as condoms go, they aren't even a fool proof method in preventing pregnancy. and as was mentioned earlier children are born with the virus, rape and, blood transfusions are all ways "innocent" people can contract this disease. and for the record, how does being attracted to a dude mean you "guilty" and equate you deserve aids anyway. what exactly do people mean by social or moral issues? a god damn after school program or church meeting will never stop any of these ways of transmitting this disease. and anyone who thinks so is completely delusional and be shot on the grounds of strengthening the species. someone asked what the church will think, well jackherer answered it for you. without the fear of disease, it's harder to control the masses. aka the church is bummed about this news. hiv and aids are not good things and i hope this will somehow lead to an affordable vaccine for this terrible disease.

Dude, condoms prevent aids. The only time they don't is when you wear them wrong, or for some unknown reason decide to wear a lambskin condom.

[Omamori]

My view:
cells=human, lol

[weedpop]

Expand Quote

People are definitely getting a little trigger happy comparing the dude to Hitler but that is some serious bullshit you are spewing, Jack Herer. I can't believe you're trying to backpedal and claim that people can't criticize your opinion because it's"just a hypothesis". You've stated it in a way that indicates it's not just a dispassionately held theory and you claim to have logical reasons for believing it; you should be held accountable for your opinion even if it's misguided.

Anyway, I think you're vastly overstating the important of "morals" in the perpetuation of social structures. They're certainly an significant precondition of social interaction but for the most part moral codes arise from the material, economic aspects of societal organization, (as well as religion to an increasingly low degree) not the other way around. Ideas about sexual morality have continued to become more liberal in the last 20 years anyway due to hyper-sexualized media and the declining influence of religion plus birth control and contraception. From 1960 to 1980 the pill became widely available and attitudes on sex were changed drastically but society still didn't implode in the way that you've vaguely prophesied.

Focusing on the morality of a cure (in a way that conveniently disregards the moral implications of allowing people to die for acting out their natural urges) also takes away from what I think of as the real problem with these kinds of research, and one which is already being faced in many parts of the world: overpopulation. Seeing as we're already well beyond the limit of earthlings that can be supported comfortably with our current productive capacity, any wonder cures should probably be distributed along with a massive program of economic aid and birth control, especially in the poorer countries. And we should definitely hold off on the "cures" for old age that people have been working on. That would be totally suicidal at this point.

[close]

I appreciate the response.

Cool.

What is the "root cause" of HIV in your opinion which needs to be addressed?

[Trickskatin]

Expand Quote

People are definitely getting a little trigger happy comparing the dude to Hitler but that is some serious bullshit you are spewing, Jack Herer. I can't believe you're trying to backpedal and claim that people can't criticize your opinion because it's"just a hypothesis". You've stated it in a way that indicates it's not just a dispassionately held theory and you claim to have logical reasons for believing it; you should be held accountable for your opinion even if it's misguided.

Anyway, I think you're vastly overstating the important of "morals" in the perpetuation of social structures. They're certainly an significant precondition of social interaction but for the most part moral codes arise from the material, economic aspects of societal organization, (as well as religion to an increasingly low degree) not the other way around. Ideas about sexual morality have continued to become more liberal in the last 20 years anyway due to hyper-sexualized media and the declining influence of religion plus birth control and contraception. From 1960 to 1980 the pill became widely available and attitudes on sex were changed drastically but society still didn't implode in the way that you've vaguely prophesied.

Focusing on the morality of a cure (in a way that conveniently disregards the moral implications of allowing people to die for acting out their natural urges) also takes away from what I think of as the real problem with these kinds of research, and one which is already being faced in many parts of the world: overpopulation. Seeing as we're already well beyond the limit of earthlings that can be supported comfortably with our current productive capacity, any wonder cures should probably be distributed along with a massive program of economic aid and birth control, especially in the poorer countries. And we should definitely hold off on the "cures" for old age that people have been working on. That would be totally suicidal at this point.

[close]

dude what the fuck? i never said they couldn't criticize my opinion because its a hypothesis, my problem was with the fact that there were no actual reasons given with the "criticism", if you can even call name calling and dumb ass hitler comparisons that; If someone had at all responded with something along the lines of what you said, i would have welcomed that criticism.

you guys are reacting as though i were someone with special knowledge or power over these issues, which is simply ridiculous, as you said, it was just the opinion of a random on the internet; whether misguided or not, there was definitely no need for the ridiculous responses i received.

but in all seriousness, based on your reply, its obvious that you disagree with me, and yet, its actually exactly what i was looking for. all i was trying to do was bring up something new to make the topic a little more interesting to discuss. instead of making some regular comparison to hitler you actually countered my arguments with far better, more educated points than mine.

while I still believe there is some truth in my morality arguments (and a lot of truth in my root cause argument), i will admit the former was entirely baseless in the sense that i had no actual idea of the impact such a thing might have on social behavior, of which i am no expert on. clearly you are more knowledgeable on the topic, and unlike the rest of these idiots that are so close minded that they refuse to actually analyze the points, you had a much larger influence on my opinion than the rest of these hyper-sensitive over reacting morons.

I appreciate the response.

The Hitler comment was originally meant to be a hyperbole, but since you clearly want to call me out about it (but not e-Man enough to do it directly), I'll go ahead and justify the comparison.

The Holocaust (1939-1945)
~6 million people murdered by the Nazis over a 6-year period

HIV/AIDS Epidemic (~1981-Present)
~33 million people currently infected
~1.8 deaths each year (2009 estimate- number has grown exponentially since first reported case)

Now, I didn't say that you were Hitler. I said that your criticisms/opinion/ignorant rantings were equivalent to attempting to justify (or "present the other side" as you so brilliantly are attempting to explain) Hitler's actions in WWII.

So, the way I see it, anything other than appreciating this massive step towards developing a cure or vaccine to possibly the worst pandemic in history, is equivalent to supporting the death of 1.8 million people per year (nearly double the yearly death toll of the Holocaust). Where are your rock-solid morals now?

And yes, while public education on preventative measures is a must, weedpop already touched on the fact that you can't stop man kind's innate sexual urges in this manner. Relying on awareness alone has already proven to be ineffective.
 
The ideal scenario for solving this issue would be the development of a vaccine given at birth. Hopefully, these new findings will bring us closer to the goal.

In conclusion, you're an idiot. Stop posting.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Who gives a shit if sex spreads disease if all of the dangerous diseases associated with it are curable? Who says it can't be far spread? If It's a one time only drug I can't see why it can't be annihilated like Polio. I could see government subsidies and huge celebrity donations going to spread that shit in Africa and all that as well.
I don't see why sex has to be held like that and some moral code or family structure based on apparently not much more than fear of stds must be kept in place.
Families don't exist because people are afraid to fuck other people because they might get a disease. There's nothing wrong with sexuality. Its a natural part of human existence. Also, its fun as hell and feels REALLY good, and I don't see why there is anything wrong or immoral about admitting that.
I wouldn't go as far as saying love and sex have nothing to do with eachother, because they can be related, but I don't see why something like AIDS should exist to hold back the sexual freedom enjoyed in times like the 1960's.
It can spread diseases, but what can't?

[jackherer]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

People are definitely getting a little trigger happy comparing the dude to Hitler but that is some serious bullshit you are spewing, Jack Herer. I can't believe you're trying to backpedal and claim that people can't criticize your opinion because it's"just a hypothesis". You've stated it in a way that indicates it's not just a dispassionately held theory and you claim to have logical reasons for believing it; you should be held accountable for your opinion even if it's misguided.

Anyway, I think you're vastly overstating the important of "morals" in the perpetuation of social structures. They're certainly an significant precondition of social interaction but for the most part moral codes arise from the material, economic aspects of societal organization, (as well as religion to an increasingly low degree) not the other way around. Ideas about sexual morality have continued to become more liberal in the last 20 years anyway due to hyper-sexualized media and the declining influence of religion plus birth control and contraception. From 1960 to 1980 the pill became widely available and attitudes on sex were changed drastically but society still didn't implode in the way that you've vaguely prophesied.

Focusing on the morality of a cure (in a way that conveniently disregards the moral implications of allowing people to die for acting out their natural urges) also takes away from what I think of as the real problem with these kinds of research, and one which is already being faced in many parts of the world: overpopulation. Seeing as we're already well beyond the limit of earthlings that can be supported comfortably with our current productive capacity, any wonder cures should probably be distributed along with a massive program of economic aid and birth control, especially in the poorer countries. And we should definitely hold off on the "cures" for old age that people have been working on. That would be totally suicidal at this point.

[close]

dude what the fuck? i never said they couldn't criticize my opinion because its a hypothesis, my problem was with the fact that there were no actual reasons given with the "criticism", if you can even call name calling and dumb ass hitler comparisons that; If someone had at all responded with something along the lines of what you said, i would have welcomed that criticism.

you guys are reacting as though i were someone with special knowledge or power over these issues, which is simply ridiculous, as you said, it was just the opinion of a random on the internet; whether misguided or not, there was definitely no need for the ridiculous responses i received.

but in all seriousness, based on your reply, its obvious that you disagree with me, and yet, its actually exactly what i was looking for. all i was trying to do was bring up something new to make the topic a little more interesting to discuss. instead of making some regular comparison to hitler you actually countered my arguments with far better, more educated points than mine.

while I still believe there is some truth in my morality arguments (and a lot of truth in my root cause argument), i will admit the former was entirely baseless in the sense that i had no actual idea of the impact such a thing might have on social behavior, of which i am no expert on. clearly you are more knowledgeable on the topic, and unlike the rest of these idiots that are so close minded that they refuse to actually analyze the points, you had a much larger influence on my opinion than the rest of these hyper-sensitive over reacting morons.

I appreciate the response.

[close]

The Hitler comment was originally meant to be a hyperbole, but since you clearly want to call me out about it (but not e-Man enough to do it directly), I'll go ahead and justify the comparison.

The Holocaust (1939-1945)
~6 million people murdered by the Nazis over a 6-year period

HIV/AIDS Epidemic (~1981-Present)
~33 million people currently infected
~1.8 deaths each year (2009 estimate- number has grown exponentially since first reported case)

Now, I didn't say that you were Hitler. I said that your criticisms/opinion/ignorant rantings were equivalent to attempting to justify (or "present the other side" as you so brilliantly are attempting to explain) Hitler's actions in WWII.

So, the way I see it, anything other than appreciating this massive step towards developing a cure or vaccine to possibly the worst pandemic in history, is equivalent to supporting the death of 1.8 million people per year (nearly double the yearly death toll of the Holocaust). Where are your rock-solid morals now?

And yes, while public education on preventative measures is a must, weedpop already touched on the fact that you can't stop man kind's innate sexual urges in this manner. Relying on awareness alone has already proven to be ineffective.
 
The ideal scenario for solving this issue would be the development of a vaccine given at birth. Hopefully, these new findings will bring us closer to the goal.

In conclusion, you're an idiot. Stop posting.

lol are you serious? your comparison wasn't regular because the casualties weren't there, or whatever it is you're trying so say; it was regular because hitler personally took it upon himself to try to exterminate the jews, all i did was say there could be a negative effect if you found a cure, which, granted probably wouldn't be nearly as bad as i first thought, but nonetheless i don't see how you can honestly attempt to make that connection (hyperbole or not).

and im the idiot? its actually hilarious that you even took the time to find those stats, when they are basically irrelevant to the validity of your analogy. not to mention only maybe 1% out of that 1.8 million would even be able to afford the fucking thing.

[Trickskatin]

lol are you serious? your comparison wasn't regular because the casualties weren't there, or whatever it is you're trying so say; it was regular because hitler personally took it upon himself to try to exterminate the jews, all i did was say there could be a negative effect if you found a cure, which, granted probably wouldn't be nearly as bad as i first thought, but nonetheless i don't see how you can honestly attempt to make that connection (hyperbole or not).

Here's how:

"another point is, although im sure most people won't agree with this, is that perhaps the world is better off without a cure for HIV an end to the Holocaust. I mean, realistically, the threat of acquiring HIV (and other stds) being killed for your Judaism, homosexuality, ethnicity, or mental disorder is a more effective tool to maintaining social structures in place than strong morals/values. basically, the world would be extra fucked up without stds Hitler."

-Your original statement reworked

and im the idiot? its actually hilarious that you even took the time to find those stats, when they are basically irrelevant to the validity of your analogy. not to mention only maybe 1% out of that 1.8 million would even be able to afford the fucking thing.

You have absolutely nothing to back that statement up with, meaning you're talking out of your ass.

[EricLogan]

I don't really care if you disagree with me, but at least explain where my logic is faulty? Other than the fact that its not "sensitive".

Fucking whoever you want whenever you want would be awesome.

[Jack Klompis]

wow that hitler anolgy is fucking terrible, replacing the words the way you did only hurts your case in my eyes, can't you see that they are two totally different causes. just because both of the outcomes are mass death does not make the two situations comparable in the way you are trying make them. there is SOME sense in his original statement (emphasizing only some, not trying to say that i or anyone else should interpret it as a fact) that the threat of HIV and STDs keeps people from going crazy wild with anonymous sex and this helps to maintain some sort of moral standard in society, which i feel would be viewed as a positive thing from most intelligent rational beings, but when replaced with judiasm, homosexuality, etc, it just looks like something regular person would say

[daniel]

wow that hitler anolgy is fucking terrible, replacing the words the way you did only hurts your case in my eyes, can't you see that they are two totally different causes. just because both of the outcomes are mass death does not make the two situations comparable in the way you are trying make them. there is SOME sense in his original statement (emphasizing only some, not trying to say that i or anyone else should interpret it as a fact) that the threat of HIV and STDs keeps people from going crazy wild with anonymous sex and this helps to maintain some sort of moral standard in society, which i feel would be viewed as a positive thing from most intelligent rational beings, but when replaced with judiasm, homosexuality, etc, it just looks like something regular person would say

so dumb.

[ice nine]

Jackherer hasn't answered one actual question, just keeps attacking the posters who called him names. Stop avoiding shit. Why is sexual freedom a bad thing? What is the aids origin thing you put so much weight on? Please tell us so we can make fun of you in greater detail.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

wow that hitler anolgy is fucking terrible, replacing the words the way you did only hurts your case in my eyes, can't you see that they are two totally different causes. just because both of the outcomes are mass death does not make the two situations comparable in the way you are trying make them. there is SOME sense in his original statement (emphasizing only some, not trying to say that i or anyone else should interpret it as a fact) that the threat of HIV and STDs keeps people from going crazy wild with anonymous sex and this helps to maintain some sort of moral standard in society, which i feel would be viewed as a positive thing from most intelligent rational beings, but when replaced with judiasm, homosexuality, etc, it just looks like something regular person would say

Please rationalize this, if most intelligent rational human beings can understand it.
Why do we have to hold back from having sex with people we are attracted to if there is no such thing as stds.

[the whompler]

Expand Quote

fact, condoms are ineffective in protecting against the hiv virus. i've heard doctors compare it to trying to stop a golfball with a basketball net. as far as condoms go, they aren't even a fool proof method in preventing pregnancy. and as was mentioned earlier children are born with the virus, rape and, blood transfusions are all ways "innocent" people can contract this disease. and for the record, how does being attracted to a dude mean you "guilty" and equate you deserve aids anyway. what exactly do people mean by social or moral issues? a god damn after school program or church meeting will never stop any of these ways of transmitting this disease. and anyone who thinks so is completely delusional and be shot on the grounds of strengthening the species. someone asked what the church will think, well jackherer answered it for you. without the fear of disease, it's harder to control the masses. aka the church is bummed about this news. hiv and aids are not good things and i hope this will somehow lead to an affordable vaccine for this terrible disease.

[close]

Dude, condoms prevent aids. The only time they don't is when you wear them wrong, or for some unknown reason decide to wear a lambskin condom.

haha lamb skin, can those be purchased at the same store as the mesh condoms? and i hate to burst your bubble my friend but tho condoms do help, they are far from fail safe. not that you would but, i wouldn't stick my properly condom-ed dick in the hottest girl on the planet if she had aids. the virus is considerably smaller than the holes that regularly occur during production of a condom. im not anti-condom cuz it's the best we've got, but in truth it's not much.
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (THOUGH NOT ELIMINATE) the risk of STD transmission.

jackherer,
please don't hide behind the the intellectual front that you are introducing some sort of profound insight with the tired overpopulation argument. if you are truly convinced of this, "the world is too crowded" problem, just get together with those who feel the same and organize a good old fashioned mass suicide. but please start with your slap account. i respect the fact that you apologized but you then go back and insult those who you may have offended in the first place. so you apologize and then say you're not sorry, aka its conceptually good for people to die of hiv. and then you call the posters idiots and morons when they communicate their dislike for your attempt at a "profound" idea.
wow, so basically to sum it up...

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Pssht, your loss man. I'd fuck a mediocre chick with Aids if I had a condom.

[burm]

Many of my family members have had cancer, and I'm really glad that they were able to be cured. But if we cured all the deadly diseases, we'll have a whole bunch more weak, old, but not mortally ill, people in nursing homes. I'm not saying that in itself is bad, but at least in my country we barely have enough people to take care of the elderly as it is. And it's a lot of money that goes into those last 20 years if everyone lives to a 100.

This is not a reason to kill off everyone over working age, but it is something that needs to be addressed as well. I'm not an expert on this matter though, so feel free to discuss.

And the initial argument of jackherer's about how the cure for HIV wont cure the reason why people get HIV in Africa, I thought education, medicine and clean supplies is exactly what we're doing already in Africa? What do you think Bono is doing there, singing? HIV doesn't make people deaf.

[the whompler]

Pssht, your loss man. I'd fuck a mediocre chick with Aids if I had a condom.

haha fuck i'd gnar you if i could. i need to step my dirty game up

[Jack Klompis]

the any intelligent rational being part definitely sounds pretentious, but all i was tryin to say is that i think the logic can be seen in the idea that complete sexual freedom (and really its not complete, its just the absence of HIV) would cause more bad than good, just because you have control of your sexual urges and emotional state doesn't mean that all people would, HIV is a huge deterrent to having sex, because if you have it, it inhibits your sexual activity (yes it can be argued that it wouldn't inhibit some), and so to rid the world of this would seem to take some of the burden off of anonymous sex, which would presumably result in more sexual activity, and this would change the public view on whats acceptable within the realm of sexual activity, and i think that this would result in a lot of confusion between sex and relationships, and not just male female relationships but in all different kinds of relationships between people, confusion that could seriously fuck a person up mentally.....

plus i would assume it (more sexual freedom) would result in a higher pregnancy rate, even if condoms were still worn along with all the other preventative measures against pregnancy. if the amount of sex activity increased then it would be assumed that the number of cases where one "slipped past the goalie" would go up as well right? and that's clearly not positive

i just don't think that concept (the threat of HIV restricting sexual activity) can be viewed as completely idiotic or be considered to have negative effects (probably more appropriate than saying it is a positive thing), especially when comparing it to the hitler remix sentence........although i'm definitely not saying i agree with either side of the main argument, i was really just annoyed with the hitler comparison

[Trickskatin]

the any intelligent rational being part definitely sounds pretentious, but all i was tryin to say is that i think the logic can be seen in the idea that complete sexual freedom (and really its not complete, its just the absence of HIV) would cause more bad than good, just because you have control of your sexual urges and emotional state doesn't mean that all people would, HIV is a huge deterrent to having sex, because if you have it, it inhibits your sexual activity (yes it can be argued that it wouldn't inhibit some), and so to rid the world of this would seem to take some of the burden off of anonymous sex, which would presumably result in more sexual activity, and this would change the public view on whats acceptable within the realm of sexual activity, and i think that this would result in a lot of confusion between sex and relationships, and not just male female relationships but in all different kinds of relationships between people, confusion that could seriously fuck a person up mentally.....

plus i would assume it (more sexual freedom) would result in a higher pregnancy rate, even if condoms were still worn along with all the other preventative measures against pregnancy. if the amount of sex activity increased then it would be assumed that the number of cases where one "slipped past the goalie" would go up as well right? and that's clearly not positive

i just don't think that concept (the threat of HIV restricting sexual activity) can be viewed as completely idiotic or be considered to have negative effects (probably more appropriate than saying it is a positive thing), especially when comparing it to the hitler remix sentence........although i'm definitely not saying i agree with either side of the main argument, i was really just annoyed with the hitler comparison

So basically you're saying you hate freedom?

[weedpop]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

fact, condoms are ineffective in protecting against the hiv virus. i've heard doctors compare it to trying to stop a golfball with a basketball net. as far as condoms go, they aren't even a fool proof method in preventing pregnancy. and as was mentioned earlier children are born with the virus, rape and, blood transfusions are all ways "innocent" people can contract this disease. and for the record, how does being attracted to a dude mean you "guilty" and equate you deserve aids anyway. what exactly do people mean by social or moral issues? a god damn after school program or church meeting will never stop any of these ways of transmitting this disease. and anyone who thinks so is completely delusional and be shot on the grounds of strengthening the species. someone asked what the church will think, well jackherer answered it for you. without the fear of disease, it's harder to control the masses. aka the church is bummed about this news. hiv and aids are not good things and i hope this will somehow lead to an affordable vaccine for this terrible disease.

[close]

Dude, condoms prevent aids. The only time they don't is when you wear them wrong, or for some unknown reason decide to wear a lambskin condom.

[close]

haha lamb skin, can those be purchased at the same store as the mesh condoms? and i hate to burst your bubble my friend but tho condoms do help, they are far from fail safe. not that you would but, i wouldn't stick my properly condom-ed dick in the hottest girl on the planet if she had aids. the virus is considerably smaller than the holes that regularly occur during production of a condom. im not anti-condom cuz it's the best we've got, but in truth it's not much.
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (THOUGH NOT ELIMINATE) the risk of STD transmission.

jackherer,
please don't hide behind the the intellectual front that you are introducing some sort of profound insight with the tired overpopulation argument. if you are truly convinced of this, "the world is too crowded" problem, just get together with those who feel the same and organize a good old fashioned mass suicide.

Overpopulation is real. It is not a "tired argument", it just seems that way because you've probably heard about it a lot due to the fact that it is currently sneaking up on many 3rd world countries in preparation to rape them in the ass. There's been a few reports in the last 15 years by UN commissions and such saying the same thing. Despite the fact that modern high yield agricultural techniques were introduced to India and other massively overpopulated countries in the 60s and 70s lack of arable land and farm labour are going to make it increasingly difficult the feed the expanding population . In the west we're lucky enough to be able to afford to import massive amounts of food for a population that really doesn't produce that much of it, but if the oil ran out we'd become a lot more aware of how precarious our resources are.

[CaptainMorganFreeman]

the any intelligent rational being part definitely sounds pretentious, but all i was tryin to say is that i think the logic can be seen in the idea that complete sexual freedom (and really its not complete, its just the absence of HIV) would cause more bad than good, just because you have control of your sexual urges and emotional state doesn't mean that all people would, HIV is a huge deterrent to having sex, because if you have it, it inhibits your sexual activity (yes it can be argued that it wouldn't inhibit some), and so to rid the world of this would seem to take some of the burden off of anonymous sex, which would presumably result in more sexual activity, and this would change the public view on whats acceptable within the realm of sexual activity, and i think that this would result in a lot of confusion between sex and relationships, and not just male female relationships but in all different kinds of relationships between people, confusion that could seriously fuck a person up mentally.....

plus i would assume it (more sexual freedom) would result in a higher pregnancy rate, even if condoms were still worn along with all the other preventative measures against pregnancy. if the amount of sex activity increased then it would be assumed that the number of cases where one "slipped past the goalie" would go up as well right? and that's clearly not positive

i just don't think that concept (the threat of HIV restricting sexual activity) can be viewed as completely idiotic or be considered to have negative effects (probably more appropriate than saying it is a positive thing), especially when comparing it to the hitler remix sentence........although i'm definitely not saying i agree with either side of the main argument, i was really just annoyed with the hitler comparison

this is complete verbal diarrhea delivered with your fingertips.

[Sleazy]

jackherer, i'm rarely flat out rude to people on here but your an idiot. please stop shitting on threads where grown ups are talking. slaying whores is one of many benifits of a cure for hiv which has no down side (get a fucking clue). what you said is regular and insensitive on every level and you continuing to defend it is just showing your intellectual immaturity. only a relgious nut or a complete idiot would throw out such a rediculous notion and not being a religious nut makes you more of an idiot because you don't have the excuse of faith to explain your lack of logic and compassion.

keep in mind, socratic technique = no ego

let it go homie...

[NowhereInLife]

AIDS is pretty much a wrap.  even if there is a no true cure yet per say, the most current pharmaceuticals got it down to a pill a day (as opposed to 40 a day, to maybe keep you alive). current life expectancy for persons with AIDS is like 77.5 yrs while for those without it's like 78.3.  but hopefully this cure is the real deal.

i chose to not subject myself to most of the contents of this thread when i saw the idiot appear.

that all said, use condoms and try to look at who you're going to do terrible things to in good lighting at least once before you roger all systems.

keep it healthy SLAP!

[grimcity]

Jack, I don't understand the concept of a virus augmenting morality in any way (which is effectively what I read into your posts). HIV isn't concerned with anything that complicated, it just wants to propagate. It's also unclear what morals you keep referring to. If you're an atheist, then you probably don't believe in an absolute moral code or absolute truth, but recognize all that shit as being relative to the individual and the culture. Again, something that a virus doesn't comprehend.

A cure for HIV/AIDS wouldn't make any cultures go buck wild, it would simply prevent people from dying from that particular infection. As far as expenses go... so what? If a cure for the virus was developed, we'd pay whatever it costs to help equip AIDS-fighting labs everywhere, and we'd spend millions in Africa just like we do now. There's no economic argument against it... HIV AIDS causes an amount of economic devastation in every culture it resides in.

It sounds like you're anthropomorphizing the virus to some degree, and on top of that, I can't think of one case where a cure or eradication of a disease has had a negative effect on humanity in any way. Quite the opposite, actually.

[jackherer]

jackherer, i'm rarely flat out rude to people on here but your an idiot. please stop shitting on threads where grown ups are talking. slaying whores is one of many benifits of a cure for hiv which has no down side (get a fucking clue). what you said is regular and insensitive on every level and you continuing to defend it is just showing your intellectual immaturity. only a relgious nut or a complete idiot would throw out such a rediculous notion and not being a religious nut makes you more of an idiot because you don't have the excuse of faith to explain your lack of logic and compassion.

keep in mind, socratic technique = no ego

let it go homie...

continuing to defend it? lol you guys are acting like im so passionate and into what i said, when ive already accepted to weedpop that his counter points made a lot of sense and since i've admitted to being wrong, like twice.

you guys are the ones that need to let shit go, if you actually think im passionate about the topic of aids, you're dead wrong, i don't really give a fuck either way, i was just bored and felt like stirring shit with a comment i knew would be controversial from the start.

you dudes must have a lot of homosexual aids infested friends if you're getting this upset over my silly message board comments in which i never even outright said hiv research should stop altogether.

i'm done with this thread, don't really give a shit anymore.

go practice your kickflips.

[grimcity]

what exactly does the procedure consist of?

For the guy in the article it was a pretty unique situation because he was also being treated for leukemia... he had been on a regimen of what I gather was a medical cocktail to curb the spread of the HIV he had, and at one point, they used his leukemia treatment to introduce stem cells from a donor that appeared to have an immunity to infection.

Fucked up part: they had to irradiate the guy to such a degree that his immune system was basically turned off (while at the same time not taking his anti viral meds).
Since his immune system was disrupted, they were able to put the new stem cells into his system without having his body reject and purge any of it... they basically infected him with cells that had both HIV resistant traits, and weren't too differentiated (stem cells are precursors to other types of cells, so instead of injecting him with with something like a tissue cell, they infected him with genetic material that could infuse itself and grow into pretty much any cell that the stems were exposed to).

They pretty much shut down all his defenses to introduce new genetic programming. Fucking amazing... though the fella probably went to hell and back, just the idea that a person might have been cured in our lifetime is fucking amazing- just the idea that they found a way to interrupt a virus is insane (a lot harder than destroying a bacteria, since viruses tend to attach to our genes).

My wife is an RN/BSN that specializes in the treatment of HIV AIDS patients at every level... needless to say we've been crazy hyped over the news, even though a practical cure is pretty far away, they at least have a working model and what I sincerely hope is a proof of concept. This shit is world changing... HIV and leukemia? With adjustments, there's no telling what disease could be next to meet the axe. Hopefully malaria, but regardless... amazing work science! So stoked on this... sorry for writing a novel, hah

[RipGrip]

Not sure if it's been mentioned but I doubt if the huge healt insurance conglomerates would allow a cure to be dispersed to the public. There's no money in a cure. Just like cancer. But then... I'm all about conspiracy theories.

[grimcity]

Not sure if it's been mentioned but I doubt if the huge healt insurance conglomerates would allow a cure to be dispersed to the public. There's no money in a cure. Just like cancer. But then... I'm all about conspiracy theories.

That's probably not a bad point... not to mention the Catholic Church (since Africa was brought up earlier). The institution has been (and is) pretty obstructionist to AIDS prevention, I'd hope they'd back a treatment. Fuckin' suits.

[Sleazy]

Expand Quote

jackherer, i'm rarely flat out rude to people on here but your an idiot. please stop shitting on threads where grown ups are talking. slaying whores is one of many benifits of a cure for hiv which has no down side (get a fucking clue). what you said is regular and insensitive on every level and you continuing to defend it is just showing your intellectual immaturity. only a relgious nut or a complete idiot would throw out such a rediculous notion and not being a religious nut makes you more of an idiot because you don't have the excuse of faith to explain your lack of logic and compassion.

keep in mind, socratic technique = no ego

let it go homie...

[close]

continuing to defend it? lol you guys are acting like im so passionate and into what i said, when ive already accepted to weedpop that his counter points made a lot of sense and since i've admitted to being wrong, like twice.

you guys are the ones that need to let shit go, if you actually think im passionate about the topic of aids, you're dead wrong, i don't really give a fuck either way, i was just bored and felt like stirring shit with a comment i knew would be controversial from the start.

you dudes must have a lot of homosexual aids infested friends if you're getting this upset over my silly message board comments in which i never even outright said hiv research should stop altogether.

i'm done with this thread, don't really give a shit anymore.

go practice your kickflips.

sorry you don't get a troll pass, your just an idiot with a cute dog

[CaptainMorganFreeman]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

jackherer, i'm rarely flat out rude to people on here but your an idiot. please stop shitting on threads where grown ups are talking. slaying whores is one of many benifits of a cure for hiv which has no down side (get a fucking clue). what you said is regular and insensitive on every level and you continuing to defend it is just showing your intellectual immaturity. only a relgious nut or a complete idiot would throw out such a rediculous notion and not being a religious nut makes you more of an idiot because you don't have the excuse of faith to explain your lack of logic and compassion.

keep in mind, socratic technique = no ego

let it go homie...

[close]

continuing to defend it? lol you guys are acting like im so passionate and into what i said, when ive already accepted to weedpop that his counter points made a lot of sense and since i've admitted to being wrong, like twice.

you guys are the ones that need to let shit go, if you actually think im passionate about the topic of aids, you're dead wrong, i don't really give a fuck either way, i was just bored and felt like stirring shit with a comment i knew would be controversial from the start.

you dudes must have a lot of homosexual aids infested friends if you're getting this upset over my silly message board comments in which i never even outright said hiv research should stop altogether.

i'm done with this thread, don't really give a shit anymore.

go practice your kickflips.

[close]

sorry you don't get a troll pass, your just an idiot with a cute dog

Jesus man that's not quite the way to convince people you're not an insensitive asshole.

[Narcissus]

Expand Quote

Not sure if it's been mentioned but I doubt if the huge healt insurance conglomerates would allow a cure to be dispersed to the public. There's no money in a cure. Just like cancer. But then... I'm all about conspiracy theories.

[close]

That's probably not a bad point... not to mention the Catholic Church (since Africa was brought up earlier). The institution has been (and is) pretty obstructionist to AIDS prevention, I'd hope they'd back a treatment. Fuckin' suits.

Bottom line is that after the impending nuclear holocaust, overpopulation will not be an issue. Any survivor-slaves will have to watch out for marauding bands of Taliban enforcers while submitting totally to the final two superpowers: China and Health Insurance Companies. This dystopian certainty will only play out shortly, though, before God does a stupendous facepalm, pulls the plug on this experiment and declares it an embarrassing failure.

I'm hoping for a total eradication of HIV in the near future so I can get my knob slobbed in dingy glory-holes before the world ends.