Next year marks the 30th anniversary of the first diagnosed AIDS case. The disease though is said to have actually been around since the late 60s before starting to wipe out heaps of people in the late 70s. After 30 years and probably close to 100 million fatalities, you have to wonder what's really going on with the "research".

It's actually been around longer than the 60's. Chris Rock said it best......"there's no money in the cure". In another five or ten years, AIDS is gonna be like having diabetes.

Nystyle709 wrote:

It's actually been around longer than the 60's. Chris Rock said it best......"there's no money in the cure". In another five or ten years, AIDS is gonna be like having diabetes.

That's pretty much it. AIDS is a money maker. They will just come up with more expensive medication that will prolong the deaths of those stricken with the disease but I'm not seeing a cure for it ever. Really wouldn't be surprised if they already have several possible cures for it under 300 lb. lock and key that they will never unleash to the public.

Nystyle709 wrote:

It's actually been around longer than the 60's. Chris Rock said it best......"there's no money in the cure". In another five or ten years, AIDS is gonna be like having diabetes.

Nystyle and MINDFUCK have it right. For years they have been setting HIV and AIDS up to be the new Diabetics; something that people can have a prolonged life with, per the onslaught of a gaggle of costly medication cocktails. When I was in high school, during Biology class, the teacher talked about the AIDS crisis. A few days later, I saw a report on TV that said science was on the verge of finding some sort of breakthrough to fight spread of AIDS, and that if everything panned out, a cure could loom. I went and told my teacher about the news report and her reaction was a cynical one. She said she had saw the report too, that she had little faith that it would lead to a cure, and doubted that they were even trying to cure it, because of how much money its medication generates.

CatEyes10736 wrote:

Next year marks the 30th anniversary of the first diagnosed AIDS case. The disease though is said to have actually been around since the late 60s before starting to wipe out heaps of people in the late 70s. After 30 years and probably close to 100 million fatalities, you have to wonder what's really going on with the "research".

What about Cancer research after a billion years you don't think they have a cure for some Cancer's?

Tony Marino wrote:

What about Cancer research after a billion years you don't think they have a cure for some Cancer's?

Or heck, even the common cold. The medical community is the biggest colony fueled by dollars & cents there is. And AIDS, many suspect is a man-created affliction, originally designed to wipe out 'undesirables' for profit. Hate to sound pessimistic, but I think the only way a cure will be unleashed is if they figure out a way to get more people infected with it (and, therefore, needing that treatment.) For as long as condom manufacturers cut into its profit, AIDS will continue to afflict, with medication designed to only ration off its grim conclusion.

Prevention seems to be the best cure.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Prevention seems to be the best cure.

Oy! I know I shouldn't take the bait, but that's just lame. Why don't to go the Third World countries and preach that rhetoric.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Prevention seems to be the best cure.

Really? And how does that "cure" work those who are already infected?

@T, what bait?

@Robbie, it doesn't help them. Never said it did. But right now it doesn't look like medical science has gotten to the point where it can cure them. At least if it was widely prevented, it could be stopped.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

@T, what bait?

@Robbie, it doesn't help them. Never said it did. But right now it doesn't look like medical science has gotten to the point where it can cure them. At least if it was widely prevented, it could be stopped.

Then that's not really a "cure", is it? To cure something is to relieve the afflicted of symptoms. Prevention isn't a cure, prevention is prevention.

RobbieFTW wrote:

Then that's not really a "cure", is it? To cure something is to relieve the afflicted of symptoms. Prevention isn't a cure, prevention is prevention.

Maybe not a cure in the traditional sense, but it is the best weapon against the disease.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

But right now it doesn't look like medical science has gotten to the point where it can cure them. At least if it was widely prevented, it could be stopped.

Well, prevention is not the answer. Finding a cure and eradicating the disease is the answer. You have people ALL OVER THE WORLD living with HIV and AIDS and they do not have the resources to learn AIDS prevention.

Trust me, if they really wanted to tomorrow, they could have something in place to stop it dead in it's tracks. I'm a Nurse Manager with an MSN and I deal with pharmaceutical companies every single day coming into the hospital where I work trying to get doctors to write scrips for their medication. Pharmas are a billion dollar business and they charge premium for those AID and HIV drugs and other drugs. Someone needs to step on their asses to make them get the ball rolling to put this thing out of it's misery once and for all.

Sitting back and saying "oh prevention is the best way" is not the answer, especially when you don't have to deal with it.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Maybe not a cure in the traditional sense, but it is the best weapon against the disease.

And 30 years and hundreds of millions of deaths later, we see just how practical that so-called weapon is.

tmontyb wrote:

Well, prevention is not the answer. Finding a cure and eradicating the disease is the answer. You have people ALL OVER THE WORLD living with HIV and AIDS and they do not have the resources to learn AIDS prevention.

Trust me, if they really wanted to tomorrow, they could have something in place to stop it dead in it's tracks. I'm a Nurse Manager with an MSN and I deal with pharmaceutical companies every single day coming into the hospital where I work trying to get doctors to write scrips for their medication. Pharmas are a billion dollar business and they charge premium for those AID and HIV drugs and other drugs. Someone needs to step on their asses to make them get the ball rolling to put this thing out of it's misery once and for all.

Sitting back and saying "oh prevention is the best way" is not the answer, especially when you don't have to deal with it.

I am not saying they shouldn't try to find a cure. They should, but they don't have one out yet and until they do, the dream of an absolute cure isn't helping anybody either.

Um, yes it is the answer to destroying the disease. Until they have a cure, it's the only answer. Maybe they'll release a cure one day, but until then, preventing more people from getting AIDS seems to be the smartest way to fight the disease. Yes, find a cure, but keep people from getting it until then. And again with the "you don't have to deal with it" argument? I need a soundbite to sound whenever somebody types that.

RobbieFTW wrote:

And 30 years and hundreds of millions of deaths later, we see just how practical that so-called weapon is.

Actually no you don't because it's not really been prevented. When you got a disease that you can't cure, what do you do? You do your damnest to keep other people from getting it! It's common sense, but people frown upon that these days.

What do you propose since you seem to think we shouldn't prevent it? Rely on the hope of a magical cure to stop it? Yeah, thirty years and hundreds of millions of deaths later, that dream seems to be working so much better.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

And again with the "you don't have to deal with it" argument? I need a soundbite to sound whenever somebody types that.

Yes, please get a soundbyte because it will make easier on me every time you say something so utterly clueless.

tmontyb wrote:

Yes, please get a soundbyte because it will make easier on me every time you say something so utterly clueless.

I'm the clueless one?(Sorry dude, it's not me) I'm just the practical one and I know practicality is something people are resistant to.

As for the soundbite, I am sure you'd rather hear that than logic anyway. Too bad. If I know you like it, it's no fun.

(Should I be done trying to debate without insults so a simple comment gets me flamed from people who can't see to handle somebody who doesn't see the world the same way they do?)

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

I'm the clueless one here dude. I'm just the practical one and I know practicality is something people are resistant to.

I'm not resistant practicality. I'm resistant to comments that are unrealistic and I will call it out every single time.

tmontyb wrote:

I'm not resistant practicality. I'm resistant to comments that are unrealistic and I will call it out every single time.

I have that same resistance to unrealism and that is why I call it out every time I see it. And I find your posts unrealistic and impractical, or at the very least, complacent in maintaining the problem.

I think you misunderstood my comment anyway. So you're calling me out on something you didn't get in the first place.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

I have that same resistance to unrealism and that is why I call it out every time I see it. And I find your posts unrealistic and impractical, or at the very least, complacent in maintaining the problem.

I think you misunderstood my comment anyway. So you're calling me out on something you didn't get in the first place.

I didn't misunderstand your comment at all. Complacent and maintaining the problem. That's a comment if I ever heard one.

I get a kick out of someone calling my comments unrealistic who hasn't been out in world, but go ahead, keep up your head up your wazzoo and live in your idealistic dream world. It's no skin off my back.

tmontyb wrote:

I didn't misunderstand your comment at all.

I get a kick out of someone calling my comments unrealistic who hasn't been out in world, but go ahead, keep up your head up your wazzoo. It's no skin off my back.

Um, yes you did, completely. I can tell by your comments, you missed it all.

Oh please, I've been in the world plenty. Seeing the world doesn't change facts, it just distorts perceptions of them sometimes. I'd worry about pulling your own head out before saying where mine is.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Um, yes you did, completely. I can tell by your comments, you missed it all.

I have 26 years on you. You have a lot to learn.

And no, you just can't accept the fact that I think your comment was ridiculous. I'm moving on.....enjoy