Cure AID's?

Want to hear something wacky?
I, Paul J. Ganguly, have the cure for aids.

















You ready?























Really?




























Ok, here it comes...









































MONOGAMY


Even if both partners have aids, the only likelihood of it infecting anyone else is almost eliminated, aside from contact with ones blood. Beyond that however, I think it's kind of a moot point.

In respone to your post, supah, I must disagree with part of it, where you said curing aids and cancer would be profitable. You're almost right. Curing cancer would be hugely popular because cancer can occur in people regardless of ethnicity, geograhical location, income bracket, etc.

AIDS, on the other hand is an acquired illness. So you see, you have to actually execute the behavior required to contract aids. It doesn't just spontaneously happen. The place where it is being acquired by the most, and acquired fastest is in africa, india, and china. Those who are acquiring it are the very poorest people in the world. The countries who are spending most on a cure, however are the very richest countries in the world, and only because it is a fraction of the pharmaceutical companies actual profit, and that in terms of scale, what the spend on research is 'worth less' than what poorer nations spend on it, because they have not necessarily weaker economies, but merely smaller ones.

You will find, however, there is no real public outcry for an AIDS vaccine, because it is not a daily issue to the average american. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies, in large part do to the aforementioned reason, will spend less if anything on an aids vaccine, due only to the fact that there are not enough people, with enough money who are in need of an AIDS vaccine. There are, however, enough people, with enough money who are vexed with improperly functioning wangs, and that the pharmaceutical companies have taken note of, and are funding accordingly.

It really boils down to this: To fund research is to for a business to imake an investment. They intend for the amount of money they make on that product to exceed the amount spent in the development and production of that product. Therefore, they only make products that will make them money, as any business does. Therefore, most of those who are affected by AIDS cannot afford the attention of the wealthiest pharmaceutical companies, who are the only ones in the world who have the means to fund research enough to produce a cure.

[QUOTE=deker]Now that private space travel is possible, we can probably just send a few million people to the moon, and they can form their own colony up there. Problem solved![/QUOTE]

Hmm... It'll be the closest thing to whatever heaven is... lots of people, no one gives a ****... lots and lots of unprotected sex with multiple partners (everyone already has AIDS, so who cares?)... mmmm.

The long time cure for aids is monogamy, as Pganguly suggested. I'll do you one more though - the quick solution is to kill everyone that has aids.

Nos.

wel, I think in other words, that's the intent of what's happening now, although it's more like "leave it alone and the problem will work itself out", meaning either a biological immunity is yielded, or those who are infected will be circumstantially quarantined, thereby allowing the disease to wipe itself out, simply because everyone in, say and entire continent will have it. I mean, it would take litterally hundreds of years to get to that point, and I don't think that people would take a non-interference stance for that long, but that's really what's happening now, altough probably not intentionally.

http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/97/104268.htm

Wow...

That's really good, although it didn't say if it prevented transmission of the disease. I would imagine it doesn't, given that it's still in the body.

I imagine also that this has got to be an extraordinarily expensive regiment of treatment, which obviously limits it's widespread use as a global cure, but we've already been over that, haven't we.

Cool find, nonetheless.

I'm sure the world will be hearing more about this in the coming months.

Of course Magic Johnson and the likes with HIV will be the only ones to be able to afford it, but who knows, maybe one day it will get to the point where it will be like getting a flu shot. Baby steps I suppose.

*goes and nails every chick in Victoria*

I think we should just leave it alone. If you wanna go out and f*** everything that moves then you gotta face the conciquence of your action. The only people with AIDS that I feel sorry for are kids born with it. If you wanna be a hoe, nature will treat you like one. And obviously, nature doesn't like hoes ... otherwise AIDS wouldn't exsist. Cruel but true. That's my .02 cents.

what about those who have sex with one person and get HIV because they werent told or didnt know? Do those people fall into the hoe catagory? or the people who have perfectly normal sex lives and happen to get it from someone who has no idea that they have got it from their perfectly normal sex life. It's a gross misrepresentation to say that the only people who have HIV and AIDS are people who are over promiscuous, its just not true. Its like saying the only people who die from hepatitis from needles are crack addicts so they should die anyway cause it was their choice to do crack. Stereotypes tend to kill decency when it comes to these topics. Of course all diseases should be cured, i think we have proven that humans will always find something else to fight about, maybe we can concentrate a little on making it a bit more of a level playing field for everyone.

[quote=Mi Lo Fu]It's a gross misrepresentation to say that the only people who have HIV and AIDS are people who are over promiscuous, its just not true.[/quote] I don't think anyone here has made any statements to that effect. An innocent victim is one who had absolutely nothing to do with the situation that they find themselves in. As far as the stereotype issue is concerned, I have to say that I think it's kind of a moot point. There are many who are infected with AIDS or HIV purely as a result of heredity, and/or some other extraneous situation over which they had no control. Case in point, tennis star Arthur Ashe, who contracted AIDS as a reslult of recieving a blood transfusion for a pre-existing condition. Besides situations like his, the circumstances under which AIDS are contracted most of the rest of the time is by a pretty concrete, and widely known set of behaviors. There's really not any other way to get HIV besides that.

I don't think that anyone has leaned too far to one side here, or neglected to consider any of the known facts. Actually, I have to say that this is one of the more evenly represented arguments that's taken place on this forum in a while.