Page 26 of 30 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 295

Thread: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

  1. #251
    Educator Dpetty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-05-17 @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    967

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by kerussll View Post
    That's not what they do, but they make a huge difference in life expectancy. The fact that you think because we don't have a vaccine now, we will never have a vaccine is very ignorant.
    Your talking about medications designed to treat the symptoms of the HIV virus, not the virus itself. VERY different thing. The HIV virus breaks down the immune system. AIDS victims then die of some other sickness because their immune system is shot. Scientist have thought they were close to a cure to AIDS many times, and every time they get close, the virus mutates in such a way that it still does the same thing, but the treatment being developed no longer touches it. My opinion is that a cure to cancer will never be found, that doesnt make me ignorant. They may end up developing something that allowes us to cure the symptoms, but again, this isnt the same thing as a cure to the disease. Just to show me how wrong i am though, why dont you give me some examples of a VIRUS that has been cured through medicine. For every one you can provide, i will provide 10.

  2. #252
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-03-15 @ 09:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,589

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dpetty View Post
    Your talking about medications designed to treat the symptoms of the HIV virus, not the virus itself. VERY different thing. The HIV virus breaks down the immune system. AIDS victims then die of some other sickness because their immune system is shot. Scientist have thought they were close to a cure to AIDS many times, and every time they get close, the virus mutates in such a way that it still does the same thing, but the treatment being developed no longer touches it. My opinion is that a cure to cancer will never be found, that doesnt make me ignorant. They may end up developing something that allowes us to cure the symptoms, but again, this isnt the same thing as a cure to the disease. Just to show me how wrong i am though, why dont you give me some examples of a VIRUS that has been cured through medicine. For every one you can provide, i will provide 10.
    People with HIV are given anti viral drugs that slow the progression of the disease. They are indeed treating the virus and slowing it down. There is no cure obviously, but that doesn't mean we couldn't someday stop the spread of HIV with a vaccine or keep lengthening the lives of people afflicted with it. I think you're playing semantics with the word "cure" when everyone else is talking about stopping the spread and eradicating a disease so we don't need a magic pill you pop once you get HIV to cure you. An extremely worthwhile cause.

    Here's the list of some viruses that people don't have to die or suffer from anymore thanks to research that has developed vaccines:

    Polio
    Small Pox
    The Flu
    RSV
    Measles
    Mumps
    Rubella
    Hepatitis B
    Hepatitis A
    HPV
    Chicken Pox
    Shingles
    Viral Pneumonia
    Viral Meningitis
    Hib
    Rabies
    Yellow Fever
    Japanese encephalitis
    Rotavirus

    So tell me why continuing research for HIV is hopeless?

  3. #253
    Educator Dpetty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-05-17 @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    967

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by kerussll View Post
    People with HIV are given anti viral drugs that slow the progression of the disease. They are indeed treating the virus and slowing it down. There is no cure obviously, but that doesn't mean we couldn't someday stop the spread of HIV with a vaccine or keep lengthening the lives of people afflicted with it. I think you're playing semantics with the word "cure" when everyone else is talking about stopping the spread and eradicating a disease so we don't need a magic pill you pop once you get HIV to cure you. An extremely worthwhile cause.
    A lot of those diseases are still pretty prevelant in other areas of the world. In most cases, its the spread of the disease that has been controlled more than actually curing the disease. If you read any of my earlier posts, you would have read how to control the spread of AIDS as well. Unfortunatly people think its more important to have indiscriminate sex, than it is to control the spread of STD's.

    Here's the list of some viruses that people don't have to die or suffer from anymore thanks to research that has developed vaccines:
    Now who is playing semantics?? The word "cure" has a pretty straight forward defenition. For example, we havent cured polio. We have developed vaccines to prevent contracting it, but when people do get it, we cant rid it from their bodies.

  4. #254
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,133

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    You must not have read this whole thread, I have put numbers and pie charts documenting everything I say, Three BILLION in AIDS research, fifteen BILLION annually in drugs to keep AIDS victims above ground.
    As compared to what? Throwing out numbers is rather meaningless unless you have other numbers to compare them to and I haven't seen you provide anything regarding the numbers of research into other diseases.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  5. #255
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,990
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Um, HIV affects humans, it's deadly, it's communicable.


    Why would it NOT be OK to spend tax dollars to fight it, if we also spend tax dollars fighting the flue?
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  6. #256
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dpetty View Post
    Now who is playing semantics?? The word "cure" has a pretty straight forward defenition. For example, we havent cured polio. We have developed vaccines to prevent contracting it, but when people do get it, we cant rid it from their bodies.
    But, when someone has the vaccine it is no longer possible to contract polio. We've pretty much eliminated polio in the United States, along with many other diseases, which used to many, many people.

    Oh, and when people get rabies, the rabies vaccine will "cure" them, provided they don't receive the vaccine too late.

  7. #257
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    As compared to what? Throwing out numbers is rather meaningless unless you have other numbers to compare them to and I haven't seen you provide anything regarding the numbers of research into other diseases.
    You need to look again, I provided alot of numbers on other diseases and they get funding in the low millions as compared to 18 billion for AIDS.

  8. #258
    Educator Dpetty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-05-17 @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    967

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    But, when someone has the vaccine it is no longer possible to contract polio. We've pretty much eliminated polio in the United States, along with many other diseases, which used to many, many people.

    Oh, and when people get rabies, the rabies vaccine will "cure" them, provided they don't receive the vaccine too late.
    Its still possible to contract polio even with the vaccine, lets not start making claims that arent true. A vaccine is not a guarantee. As far as rabies is concerned, the vaccine needs to be administered before the incubation period is over, so technically before the person actually developes rabies. If not, then the vaccine as about as effective as a sugar pill...
    Where AIDS is concerned, there is already a vaccine. Its called common sense.

  9. #259
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,876
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
    so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?

    EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
    Two things wrong with your post.

    1: Bold: You admit that AIDS does not affect only those with risky behavior. The fact that it does not is in itself enough of a reason to find a cure for AIDS.

    2: The fact that you apparently singled out gays and practically say that being gay is just a trend shows that you have something against gays. The whole post reads as if you would prefer to just let gays suffer for something that you consider a type of risky behavior that does not deserve help. Totally ignoring the fact that there are millions of different risky behaviors that everyone, including you, participate in every single day and yet you no doubt support in the helping with. We don't live in a bubble where every bad little thing is hidden and doesn't affect us. We drive. We drink. We eat things that are not good for us. We fly. We take time out of our day to watch tv or post on forums (not exactly healthy exercise is it?). We walk across streets..half the time while not at a crosswalk. And the list goes on and on and on.

    If you really were against spending money on "risky behavior" then you would not support any tax dollars that goes towards ANY risky behavior that is preventable. Not just single out one thing that happens to affect a group of people that you apparently are against. The whole "we should spend money on things like "childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc" is just a distraction and an empty face saving morality stance.
    Last edited by Kal'Stang; 12-09-12 at 11:37 AM.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  10. #260
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Two things wrong with your post.

    1: Bold: You admit that AIDS does not affect only those with risky behavior. The fact that it does not is in itself enough of a reason to find a cure for AIDS.

    2: The fact that you apparently singled out gays and practically say that being gay is just a trend shows that you have something against gays. The whole post reads as if you would prefer to just let gays suffer for something that you consider a type of risky behavior that does not deserve help. Totally ignoring the fact that there are millions of different risky behaviors that everyone, including you, participate in every single day and yet you no doubt support in the helping with. We don't live in a bubble where every bad little thing is hidden and doesn't affect us. We drive. We drink. We eat things that are not good for us. We fly. We take time out of our day to watch tv or post on forums (not exactly healthy exercise is it?). We walk across streets..half the time while not at a crosswalk. And the list goes on and on and on.

    If you really were against spending money on "risky behavior" then you would not support any tax dollars that goes towards ANY risky behavior that is preventable. Not just single out one thing that happens to affect a group of people that you apparently are against. The whole "we should spend money on things like "childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc" is just a distraction and an empty face saving morality stance.
    I never singled out gays, that is your imagination talking. I said over and over promiscuous sex and people who share needles. Maybe it is you who equates all promiscuous sex to be gay sex. The fact is though gays vastly outnumber hetros in contracting AIDS. How much of this is due to promiscuity I have no idea but I do know anal sex is far riskier than male female intercourse.

Page 26 of 30 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •