Cure To HIV Discovered?

Off Topic
61

The more you people talk about life and reproduction in entirely scientific ways the closer you get to the inevitable conclusion that life is utterly meaningless and the only way to end all of humanity’s problems is for it to cease to exist but I’m sure you’ll say something funny about how that’s not really the ultimate solution. It’s pretty funny.

“We should treat people completely like machines in what choices they can make in life and restrict their ability to reproduce because their genes may do more bad than good for the world.” That’s basically the road some of you are going down. If you’re going to say that then really we should all cease to reproduce because as long as humans continue to exist consciously they are guaranteed to suffer in some way. To eliminate all suffering everyone must cease to exist and die.

I can’t wait to see the replies that try to use bs idealistic reasoning to say that isn’t what things come down to ultimately after people make these cold purely analytical remarks.

What’s the point of trying so hard to improve ourselves through evolution when the only way we can achieve peace and perfection is in nonexistence?

62

[quote]tedro wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
tedro wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Regardless: he forgot to take into consideration that vaccinations and cures themselves are a part of human evolution.

No they are not. Vaccinations and cures give everyone the ability to live and reproduce, whether they are fit enough to do it on their own or not. When everyone lives and everyone passes on there traits equally, evolution can no longer occur. If the vaccinations were only given to the creators of the drugs, or even a select few, your argument would be valid.

you better not vaccinate your kids then cause I don’t want you to further allow inferior humans to populate the earth.

unreal

Unreal? What’s unreal? You quoted my as saying that vaccinations are not a form of evolution. Do you disagree? How so?

I don’t understand what my children have to do with this particular issue, nor do I know by what reasoning you deem them “inferior”.[/quote]

The logic of vaccinations taking away from evolution seems silly to me.
I was simply implying from what you wrote that vaccinations help the weak survive. And thus if the weak have offspring it makes for more “inferior” people.
So, in your logic why would you want anyone that you know vaccinated since it will only further cause evolutionary problems.

then again, maybe my logic is off from what you’re saying.

63

[quote]The logic of vaccinations taking away from evolution seems silly to me.
I was simply implying from what you wrote that vaccinations help the weak survive. And thus if the weak have offspring it makes for more “inferior” people.[/quote]

This was what Darwin said. Again, I’m not defending it. Darwin thought that it would let the less “fit” survive.

64

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
I’d like to see those of you who say “contracting it is highly unlikely” have sex with an infected partner without protection.

seriously, say this super hot girl was willing to put out yet she tells you she is infected. Are you really saying that it is so unlikely to catch it, that you would knowingly do it unprotected?

Dumb example.

I hugged an HIV positive guy a week ago. How is that?

how is that a dumb example. answer the question[/quote]

I wouldn’t have unprotected sex with any random woman no matter how hot she was even if she claimed she was disease free.

Hell I am married, I wouldn’t have sex with a random woman if I knew she was disease free and I was wearing a full body condom from the Naked Gun, and she was going to get on a spaceship for the next galaxy as soon as we were done.

65

[quote]Andyyboy wrote:
Sorry if im being all paranoid here, but i doubt they’ll ever find a cure… not that they can’t, but they wont. There is no money in the cure, it’s money in the treahment. If someone gets a shot and it kills the virus, how much money will they make. Whens HIV patients have to take 20 different pills a day, that means big money. Wish this wasnt the case, but it’s atleast a theory. There arent really alot of cures out there come to think about it.[/quote]

Who is they? These researchers are not making money off of todays current treatments. They very much want to find a cure, get rich and become famous.

Edited for clarity.

66

[quote]tedro wrote:
Any part that is not inheritable is due to nuture.[/quote]

A trait may not be very heritable, but still genetic. For example, having five fingers on each hand has very low heritability. It is certainly genetic, but most variations in numbers of fingers are due to exogenous substances, rather than variations in genes themselves.

67

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
The logic of vaccinations taking away from evolution seems silly to me.
I was simply implying from what you wrote that vaccinations help the weak survive. And thus if the weak have offspring it makes for more “inferior” people.
So, in your logic why would you want anyone that you know vaccinated since it will only further cause evolutionary problems.

then again, maybe my logic is off from what you’re saying.
[/quote]

I believe everyone has a right to life, beginning at conception. Life and quality of life is also a privilege bestowed upon us all by the simple chance of happening to be born during this era.

Therefore, I believe vaccinations and cures are perfectly acceptable, but not necessarily a right. One loses their privilege to a quality life if they make bad decisions.

At the same time, we must practice compassion, especially for those that are sickened or diseased through no fault of their own.

I do not believe all individuals should have the right to breed. Many, many of us are only alive today because of the scientific and social advancements of others. We must respect the right to life and the privilege of a quality life of future generations. Quality of life will suffer for all of society if we continue down this road.

68

[quote]tedro wrote:
With the result being a species better suited to its environment. Evolution cannot occur without reproduction, barriers to reproduction, and competition.

There is very little competition preventing people from reaching reproductive age, and once there, there is nothing preventing people from breeding.

If everyone gets to breed, and all new offspring are allowed to reach breeding age and in turn breed, then there is no competition to make some individuals better equipped for survival than others. Therefore, the superior traits will only pass on in a straight line, and never spread to a greater porportion of the population. If the superior traits, in terms of adaptability, cannot spread, evolution cannot occur.

What does happen is everyone gets to breed, and since the unintelligent tend to reproduce more, the average intelligence of human beings is slowly brought down.[/quote]

Maybe better suited to its environment, but maybe not. there are a lot of current theories circulating about the goal of reproduction. Evolution also doesn’t have to change a species at all.

“The coelacanth, not the human, is the triumph of genetic systems because it has remained faithfully true to type for millions of generations despite endless assaults on the chemicals that make up its heredity.” I think (I could easily be wrong) you’re still considering evolution a good thing, and assuming that an organism would prefer to keep its mutation rate fairly high, and then do a good job of picking out the good ones via survival of the fittest. That’s an incredibly outdated train of thought though. I hope you’d at least agree that Darwin may have been a forerunner, but modern science has disproved many of his theories. It seems like you’re thinking along the lines of the “tangled bank theory” of Graham Bell, who was a Darwin follower.

Are you also trying to say something like: because of advances in medicine and overproducing agriculture systems, people are surviving who would have normally been laid out by the laws of survival of the fittest and that the breakdown of survival of the fittest has lead to less then fit people surviving.

Not to put words in your mouth, but if it’s something along those lines, survival of the fittest is a fallacy, and even if a species is getting less intelligent it’s still evolution. Evolution can be a bad thing. De-evolution is a made up concept.

69

[quote]nothingclever wrote:
What’s the point of trying so hard to improve ourselves through evolution when the only way we can achieve peace and perfection is in nonexistence?[/quote]

What!?!

Evolution is NOT the same as improvement, like I said before, it’s a treadmill, not a ladder. Evolution doesn’t get you anywhere.

Peace and perfection through nonexistence? Nihilism is for boners.

70

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
This was what Darwin said. Again, I’m not defending it. Darwin thought that it would let the less “fit” survive. [/quote]

Darwin = Outdated

71

[quote]forkknifespoon wrote:
Maybe better suited to its environment, but maybe not. there are a lot of current theories circulating about the goal of reproduction. Evolution also doesn’t have to change a species at all.
[/quote]

By the very definition of evolution, there must be change. Not necessarily so much change as to create a new species, but the species must be changed in some way, or else evolution has not occured. Whether or not the change is for the better can only be debated on a case by case basis.

You are correct, and that is what I am saying, but I am afraid you may be jumping to the wrong conclusion. This is where morality enters the equation. We also must be very careful with semantics at this point.

Yes, evolution does not specify that the change is for the better. Even change for the worse is still called evolution, and terms like de-evolution and reverse evolution are redundant. However, for the sake of this argument, I refer to evolution as change for the better, and de-evolution, or reverse evolution, as change to a more primitive state.

We are not animals, we are not bacteria, we are not viruses. We are human beings and operate on a much higher level than anything else ever discovered. Do you think the goal of humanity is simply to survive for as long as possible, or to survive and maintain a high quality of life? I believe we should do everything in our power and within reason to ensure a high quality of life for future generations, and not simply survive.

Yes, people are alive today because of advancements in technology that would not be alive 100 years ago. This is great, and they are also living better lives. We must be careful with this new power to help everyone live though. People want power and people get spoiled and it is human nature to be selfish. If we continue down this road of unregulated reproduction, and the current trend of the unintelligent, less fit, breeding in larger numbers than the genetically superior, then we will be left with a majority hungry for power, but not intelligent enough to foresee the problems of they themselves being in power. It may not kill off humanity, but it will decrease the quality of life for everyone.

Again, I have not suggested that anyone should lose their right to life, merely that everyone should not have the right to breed.

72

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I’d like to see those of you who say “contracting it is highly unlikely” have sex with an infected partner without protection.

seriously, say this super hot girl was willing to put out yet she tells you she is infected. Are you really saying that it is so unlikely to catch it, that you would knowingly do it unprotected?[/quote]

To add to that note. I know a female who had unprotected sex with a man for 10 MONTHS!! He was “undetectable”. She did not get HIV. Amazing huh?

73

[quote]tedro wrote:
By the very definition of evolution, there must be change.
[/quote]

Yeah, you caught me being a stupid. I meant that in the scheme we were talking about of good and bad changes, sometimes evolution just manages to restore the same equilibrium but by changing something.

[quote]tedro wrote:
You are correct, and that is what I am saying, but I am afraid you may be jumping to the wrong conclusion. This is where morality enters the equation. We also must be very careful with semantics at this point.

Yes, evolution does not specify that the change is for the better. Even change for the worse is still called evolution, and terms like de-evolution and reverse evolution are redundant. However, for the sake of this argument, I refer to evolution as change for the better, and de-evolution, or reverse evolution, as change to a more primitive state.

We are not animals, we are not bacteria, we are not viruses. We are human beings and operate on a much higher level than anything else ever discovered. Do you think the goal of humanity is simply to survive for as long as possible, or to survive and maintain a high quality of life? I believe we should do everything in our power and within reason to ensure a high quality of life for future generations, and not simply survive.

Yes, people are alive today because of advancements in technology that would not be alive 100 years ago. This is great, and they are also living better lives. We must be careful with this new power to help everyone live though. People want power and people get spoiled and it is human nature to be selfish. If we continue down this road of unregulated reproduction, and the current trend of the unintelligent, less fit, breeding in larger numbers than the genetically superior, then we will be left with a majority hungry for power, but not intelligent enough to foresee the problems of they themselves being in power. It may not kill off humanity, but it will decrease the quality of life for everyone.

Again, I have not suggested that anyone should lose their right to life, merely that everyone should not have the right to breed.
[/quote]

I think I was bringing a scientific knife to a moral gunfight. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. It does make me upset to see “progress” really biting us in the ass. I’d love to see a return to a hunter-gatherer setting. I don’t think our quality of living has increased over the years and I think right now we’re on the edge of a very slippery slope. The fact that obesity rates are so high, and most people are basically consuming a corn diet, but still managing to live so long, and with so many complications. At least I don’t believe the only way we can achieve peace and perfection is in nonexistence.

74

[quote]Geminspector wrote:

To add to that note. I know a female who had unprotected sex with a man for 10 MONTHS!! He was “undetectable”. She did not get HIV. Amazing huh?

[/quote]

How do you know SHE isn’t just “undetectable” now, too?

75

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The connection between HIV and AIDs is going to turn out to be another scam, like CO2 causing global warming. Anything to squeeze another dollar out of the hapless American taxpayer…
[/quote]

Elaborate, please.

Edit: Nevermind.

76

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The connection between HIV and AIDs is going to turn out to be another scam, like CO2 causing global warming. Anything to squeeze another dollar out of the hapless American taxpayer…

STFU.[/quote]

"In the spring of 1987, propaganda consultant Ellis Medavoy became aware that his objectives were being threatened by a University of Berkeley virologist named Peter Duesberg.

Duesberg had just published a long paper in the journal Cancer Research. That paper made a case against HIV as the cause of AIDS.

Duesberg was far from being a nobody. He was a star in his field. He had grant monies to do research. He had a lab at Berkeley and graduate students lining up to be part of his team. Duesberg was, in addition, a recognized expert in the emerging field of retrovriruses.

He was, in his own way, the equal, in terms of prestige, of Robert Gallo. In fact, Duesberg had worked with Gallo and Montagnier and others in the doomed Viral Cancer Project, an effort to show that cancers were caused by retroviruses.

Duesberg had bailed out of that project. “I could see that we weren’t getting anywhere,” he told me. “These viruses were interesting, but I discovered that they weren’t very important as far as cancer research was concerned. But Gallo and others stayed on. They had their reasons. I was glad to leave. Disappointed, to a degree, but satisfied. I had seen what there was to see.”

Medavoy told me, “Duesberg was a wild card. We knew we could come across one, and he was it. He saw through the propaganda we were spreading in the guise of science. He attacked HIV from a researcher’s point of view and he said all the right things. That is, he didn’t know there was an intense propaganda campaign coordinated at high levels to ‘protect’ HIV as the cause of AIDS. But he knew the science.”

http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Document:Depopulation_and_HIV#We_Had_to_Discredit_Peter_Duesberg_.2821_February_2003.29

77

"Duesberg’s principal ally at the time was Harvey Bialy, the research editor of Bio/Technology, a sister publication of Nature, the revered medical journal. Bialy was completely disgusted with the rush to judgement that had accompanied Gallo’s unsubstantiated claims for HIV as the cause of AIDS.

Bialy was definitely not a man to tangle with in print. He was quite willing to do the one thing most career-minded researchers were loathe to engage in. Bialy would read a key paper on the subject of HIV all the way through and in detail, and then blast the arguments to smithereens. Point by point. Like Duesberg, he read the fine print and the methods sections, and he was brutal in his criticism. Bialy saw that, in a field (virology) that once rippled with extensive debate, AIDS was taking over as mush-science. Press-conference science. Bubble-head science. Science on behalf of gaining money grants to spout the favored line." — from the link

Just follow the millions, boys…just follow the millions…

78

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Geminspector wrote:

To add to that note. I know a female who had unprotected sex with a man for 10 MONTHS!! He was “undetectable”. She did not get HIV. Amazing huh?

How do you know SHE isn’t just “undetectable” now, too?[/quote]

Because it has been over 6 months since she was first tested. You do not aquire HIV at undetectable levels. It is the anti-viral meds that get the virus to that level.

79

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Andyyboy wrote:
Sorry if im being all paranoid here, but i doubt they’ll ever find a cure… not that they can’t, but they wont. There is no money in the cure, it’s money in the treahment. If someone gets a shot and it kills the virus, how much money will they make. Whens HIV patients have to take 20 different pills a day, that means big money. Wish this wasnt the case, but it’s atleast a theory. There arent really alot of cures out there come to think about it.

Who is they? These researchers are not making money off of todays current treatments. They very much want to find a cure, get rich and become famous.

Edited for clarity.[/quote]

So your saying the pharmaceutical agencies would make more one on a 1 time shot than a life time of medicine? I’m going to end it here, i don’t want this post to end up like the one on the home defense thread.

80

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The connection between HIV and AIDs is going to turn out to be another scam, like CO2 causing global warming. Anything to squeeze another dollar out of the hapless American taxpayer…
[/quote]

I don’t understand what you mean. Can you explain please?