Prohibit AIDS treatment?

I was reading earlier that AIDS infections, in particular amoung youths, are increasing steadily. The authors of the study attribute this to a casual attitude about the disease. The reasoning is that the various and effective cocktails of anti-viral drugs that are out there are prolonging the 'infected but not symptomatic' stage, and that this results in a perception that aids isn't all that bad. Witness the recent reports of actual "bug chasers".

Some youths, who are infected with HIV :

believe that sexual behaviors that could lead to the transmission of HIV, like unprotected sex, are less risky" if viral levels are low
(source)

This may have, in my understanding, helped result in the formation of the new drug-resistant and rapid onset version of the incurable and fatal disease. You see, lots of diseases have 'alternate' versions that rapidly kill their victims/hosts. THis is perplexing, because its in the 'interests of the disease' to kill people slowly, so as to spread to the most number of victims and result in the highest numbers of disease organisms. Its understood now tho that these rapid onset diseases with high fatality rates are 'more fit' than their relatively docile counterparts when infection rates are high. IOW, having a population wherein infections can occur at high rates practically results in the creation of these more virulent forms.

So now the subject matter. Distributing anti-viral AIDs cocktails to prolong life and reduce onset of fullblown AIDS in those infected with HIV has resulted in a situation where the population effectively creates new and more powerful and, importantly, more infectious, versions of the disease, along with a social attitude that in itself promotes not merely lax sexual practices amoung the population of non-infectives or those unaware that they are infected, but actual permisivity amoung those knowingly infected.

In order to prevent the spread and increase in disease virulence, to attain the greatest good for the greatest number of people, should non-cure symptom treatments and such be prohibited?

And, importantly, if not, then why permit a minority of people to not suffer for a slightly longer period of time, if it comes at the cost of many many more lives?

i think instead of hating aids, we should become friends, then beat the hell outta them until they become safe and use them to attck those damn cancer cells.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I was reading earlier that AIDS infections, in particular amoung youths, are increasing steadily. The authors of the study attribute this to a casual attitude about the disease. The reasoning is that the various and effective cocktails of anti-viral drugs that are out there are prolonging the 'infected but not symptomatic' stage, and that this results in a perception that aids isn't all that bad. Witness the recent reports of actual "bug chasers".

Some youths, who are infected with HIV :

believe that sexual behaviors that could lead to the transmission of HIV, like unprotected sex, are less risky" if viral levels are low
(source)

This may have, in my understanding, helped result in the formation of the new drug-resistant and rapid onset version of the incurable and fatal disease. You see, lots of diseases have 'alternate' versions that rapidly kill their victims/hosts. THis is perplexing, because its in the 'interests of the disease' to kill people slowly, so as to spread to the most number of victims and result in the highest numbers of disease organisms. Its understood now tho that these rapid onset diseases with high fatality rates are 'more fit' than their relatively docile counterparts when infection rates are high. IOW, having a population wherein infections can occur at high rates practically results in the creation of these more virulent forms.

So now the subject matter. Distributing anti-viral AIDs cocktails to prolong life and reduce onset of fullblown AIDS in those infected with HIV has resulted in a situation where the population effectively creates new and more powerful and, importantly, more infectious, versions of the disease, along with a social attitude that in itself promotes not merely lax sexual practices amoung the population of non-infectives or those unaware that they are infected, but actual permisivity amoung those knowingly infected.

In order to prevent the spread and increase in disease virulence, to attain the greatest good for the greatest number of people, should non-cure symptom treatments and such be prohibited?

And, importantly, if not, then why permit a minority of people to not suffer for a slightly longer period of time, if it comes at the cost of many many more lives?

Your hypothesis is based on distorted information and regardless, rather draconian. Condemning hundreds of thousands of people to death "for the greater good" seems to mask a larger and more sinister agenda, no?

First off, the existence of a "super-strain" of AIDS is still unknown as there has only been one confirmed case and many researchers believe that the rapid onset was due to unknowns regarding a predisposition in the patient, not in the strain of the virus. More research is being done but until a Case "B" is found, Case "A" is still a mysterious anomaly.

www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2005/02/25/MNGJTBGT631.DTL

Also, the Newsday article reveals that teenagers are woefully misinformed about HIV transmission. The concept that if HIV levels are low, transmission can't occur is a misconception they learned on the street. They aren't taught that HIV is deadly. Perhaps they misinterpreted Magic Johnson's inane babblings about his recovery on talk shows rather than getting real information in school. Obviously this would lead to unprotected sex and infection, just like their favorite basketball stars. It is not some careless disregard of facts--they don't know the facts in the first place.

And why is that?

How about abstinence education. There was a battle that started in the mid-90's over faith-based sex ed and it was won when Bush took office. These programs sometimes teach nothing more about HIV/AIDS than to avoid getting it, don't have sex until you are married. Nothing about how it is transmitted, nothing about the virus, nothing about how treatments may work, but leave you with other permanent physical problems. There has also been misinformation taught, such as condoms are ineffectual for preventing AIDS and pregnancy. Distorted kid logic says, why use them if they don't work, right? And I seriously doubt that the phrase "dental dam" is uttered in sex ed these days, although according to Katie Couric, girls as young as 13 need them regularly and consider oral sex "no big whoop."

The latest CDC survey indicates that about 80% of teenagers have sex by the time they are 19. Younger kids are waiting longer, but this doesn't mean that they aren't fooling around. There have been stories everywhere about kids engaging in casual sexual activity and just stopping short of intercourse--without realizing the dangers of exposing themselves to STDs, including HIV.

If HIV infections are increasing, obviously unprotected sex is occurring quite often (which is also revealed in the CDC stats.)

I don't have a problem with telling a teenager that it is a good idea to wait to have sex, but that should be followed with accurate information on how to protect yourself when the inevitable happens.

So no, I don't think that treatment should be held back from those who contract HIV/AIDS "for the greater good." Drug cocktails are working for many people and safe-sex education programs are effective. People with HIV/AIDs aren't an isolated group of homosexuals, drug users, freaks and felons--it is a global problem that will effect all of us if it is left unchecked.

www.agi-usa.org...
www.aegis.com...
www.cdc.gov...

Originally posted by Nygdan


In order to prevent the spread and increase in disease virulence, to attain the greatest good for the greatest number of people, should non-cure symptom treatments and such be prohibited?

And, importantly, if not, then why permit a minority of people to not suffer for a slightly longer period of time, if it comes at the cost of many many more lives?

Next step? Quarantine camps maybe?



.

Originally posted by lmgnyc
Your hypothesis is based on distorted information and regardless, rather draconian.

No arguement on it being draconian, although 'draconian' methods usually aren't done for the greatest good.

Condemning hundreds of thousands of people to death

Everyone infected with AIDs is going to die. THere is no cure. They are all already dead. There is no getting around this for now.

seems to mask a larger and more sinister agenda, no?

Since its my idea then I know well enough that it masks no agenda.

First off, the existence of a "super-strain" of AIDS is still unknown as there has only been one confirmed case

Indeed, it may not be as much of a problem as sometimes reported. There are multiple cases tho. In NY and in california and Canada. I agree entirely tho, I certainly don't suggest that these measures be taken now, and certainly not based on a few newspaper reports of all things.

If i was in a position of authority to make this decision, I would certainly not actually consider it at this time.

How about abstinence education.

Absurd. AIDs is a STD. Any prevention program logically has to focus on not engaging in the very behaviour that is the only real thing that transmits this disease. I certainly don't think ab education is going to solve anything, but to suggest that a programme that focuses on abstinence is somehow resulting in more dangerous sexual activity is a stretch.

These programs sometimes teach nothing more about HIV/AIDS than to avoid getting it, don't have sex until you are married.

Well, lets ignore the fact that that would stop this disease dead in its tracks. Yes transfusions can spread it, but lets be serious for a moment, its spread thru sexual activity, decrease the number of sex acts, or sex partners, and you decrease the infection rate.

should be followed with accurate information on how to protect yourself when the inevitable happens.

Indeed, this is the general programme of sex education. An 'abstinence only' programme is rare in the extreme, certainly in NYC where a third of this study was conducted.

So no, I don't think that treatment should be held back from those who contract HIV/AIDS "for the greater good."

In the situation you have outlined where there are alternative methods to decrease the infection rate, ie better education and there is no rapid onset variant, sure, why make those people suffer to save a small number. The most happiness for the most people rule would require that those millions infected with it be kept 'healthy' and that the alternative sources be used.

My scenario is that there is infact this rapid onset, as has been reported. And that the current programme of sex ed, which is the programme you describe, is ineffective, de facto

Given that, to prevent millions more from becomming infected, and getting inffected with a rapid untreatable variant, why not withhold treatment ( to increase public fear of aids?). We are talking about limiting the number of people suffering from aids symptoms and dying of the disease no? SO what sit idle and not just allow, but create (as a society) the evolutionary conditions requisite to make this rapid onset&untreatable type more fit? Do nothing and the current batch of aids patients wait another decade to die from it, but meanwhile they are replaced by an even greater number of people who die horribly and with much suffering.



Drug cocktails are working for many people and safe-sex education programs are effective.

People with HIV/AIDs aren't an isolated group of homosexuals, drug users, freaks and felons[p/quote]
Excuse me, but I never even suggested that. And I take great offense if you infact are implying that I do suggest it. I can only assume that I have misunderstood your drift in the above. Is that correct?

it is a global problem that will effect all of us if it is left unchecked

And how will the globe and history look upon a social decision to allow a more virulent, more terrible, and more destructive virus come into being? The decision to do nothing when aids was spreading the first time was a great folly. COuld not this similiar decision be seen as again doing nothing?

soficrow
Quarantine camps maybe?

And what would be wrong with that? How would you suggest a segement of a population that has bubonic plague be treated? Especially if all they had to do to prevent the spread of plague was wear a surgeons mask? I certainly don't suggest that that is what shoudl be done with AIDS victims. I suspect that what will really happen with this new variant is that lots of people will get disgustingly and terrifyingly sick very quickly and die off in large numbers, putting it in the forfront and making people scared of catching the disease again, thus proding them into being careful and reducing transmission.

Indeed, camps are uncessary, because AIDS is not a highly transmitable disease. Any disease where you can make out with the person who has it and not have much of a chance of catching it has a 'low infectious ability'. Realistically and generally, only sex spreads it. So people who have it don't have unprotected sex, at the very least.

What would you suggest be done with someone who has AIDs, but refuses to stop having sex with ignorant partners in an unprotected manner? Would you say that such a person has committed a crime? Would a crime not warrant imprisonment? How is that logic different from concentration camps? Anyway, its an unrealistic scenario, the vast majority of people with AIDS are hopefully not transmitting it, so there is no reason to quarentine them. If they were, then, why not?

While I am all in favor of population control I am not in favor of neglecting to treat people for Aids in the fear that it gives some a sense of invulnerability. It is still a deadly disease, and as such those that chase it are just injecting their measure of chlorine into the gene pool by killing themselves.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I was reading earlier that AIDS infections, in particular amoung youths, are increasing steadily. The authors of the study attribute this to a casual attitude about the disease. The reasoning is that the various and effective cocktails of anti-viral drugs that are out there are prolonging the 'infected but not symptomatic' stage, and that this results in a perception that aids isn't all that bad. Witness the recent reports of actual "bug chasers".

Some youths, who are infected with HIV :

believe that sexual behaviors that could lead to the transmission of HIV, like unprotected sex, are less risky" if viral levels are low
(source)

This may have, in my understanding, helped result in the formation of the new drug-resistant and rapid onset version of the incurable and fatal disease. You see, lots of diseases have 'alternate' versions that rapidly kill their victims/hosts. THis is perplexing, because its in the 'interests of the disease' to kill people slowly, so as to spread to the most number of victims and result in the highest numbers of disease organisms. Its understood now tho that these rapid onset diseases with high fatality rates are 'more fit' than their relatively docile counterparts when infection rates are high. IOW, having a population wherein infections can occur at high rates practically results in the creation of these more virulent forms.
its called poor education as far as bug chasers they are mentally ill

So now the subject matter. Distributing anti-viral AIDs cocktails to prolong life and reduce onset of fullblown AIDS in those infected with HIV has resulted in a situation where the population effectively creates new and more powerful and, importantly, more infectious, versions of the disease, along with a social attitude that in itself promotes not merely lax sexual practices amoung the population of non-infectives or those unaware that they are infected, but actual permisivity amoung those knowingly infected.
its those who dont know they are infected that are most likely to spread it

In order to prevent the spread and increase in disease virulence, to attain the greatest good for the greatest number of people, should non-cure symptom treatments and such be prohibited?
viruses mutate over time anyways if you apply this to hiv/aids then are you willing to apply this to anti biotics as well? I bet your not

And, importantly, if not, then why permit a minority of people to not suffer for a slightly longer period of time, if it comes at the cost of many many more lives?
suffer? a slightly longer time? people with hiv live a lot longer now infact lots die of natural causes that arnt related to hiv and the same thing can happen with people who have full blown aids provided they dont have some of the OI's and you dont have to have any OI's to have an aids diagnoses

Originally posted by Nygdan
In order to prevent the spread and increase in disease virulence, to attain the greatest good for the greatest number of people, should non-cure symptom treatments and such be prohibited?

If scientists and researchers had taken this kind of attitude a hundred years ago, a lot of us would be suffering from Polio. At its peak, it was the most dreaded disease of the country, even FDR suffered from it, but that didn't prevent them treating and finding a cure.

Same situation with AIDS, as technology improves, we will eventually find a cure for AIDS, so if we stop treating now, then we would have AIDS forever.

True the virus evolves very soon making it very difficult to keep up with the new form, but that shouldn't stop us from helping millions who are suffering this and many uncurable diseases.

Contrary to the notion that the virus evolution is bad, it is not. There are many possible side effects to this. For example evolution from the wild type could lead to a newer form of virus, that could co exist with us. Of course this scenario is not probable in the near future, perhaps if we manage not to blow up ourselves, we could evolve into something better, to whom virus could be very useful.

Surf

Damn. Double post, Sorry.

Surf

[edit on 3/1/2005 by surfup]

Nygdan look up Eugenics to fight your corner.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Everyone infected with AIDs is going to die. THere is no cure. They are all already dead. There is no getting around this for now.

Not true. People are living with AIDS. In the year 2000, the average life expectancy for people living with full-blown AIDS was 6 years from onset if they were receiving treatment. HIV+ people averaged 11 years until the onset of AIDS. In the past four years, there have been significant breakthroughs in treatments and I personally know several people who have been living with AIDS for over ten years and are healthy--and will probably live for many years to come. Also, in the past four years, more people who are HIV+ began receiving treatment and may stave off AIDS indefinitely.

Not everyone can be helped, but there are many people that can live for decades after developing AIDS. Are you suggesting that these people should be abandoned?

Absurd. AIDs is a STD. Any prevention program logically has to focus on not engaging in the very behaviour that is the only real thing that transmits this disease. I certainly don't think ab education is going to solve anything, but to suggest that a programme that focuses on abstinence is somehow resulting in more dangerous sexual activity is a stretch.

Well, lets ignore the fact that that would stop this disease dead in its tracks. Yes transfusions can spread it, but lets be serious for a moment, its spread thru sexual activity, decrease the number of sex acts, or sex partners, and you decrease the infection rate.

Indeed, this is the general programme of sex education. An 'abstinence only' programme is rare in the extreme, certainly in NYC where a third of this study was conducted.

Actually, my sister has to teach the annual sex-ed seminar in the NYC public school system (she is an art teacher, but her school doesn't have a gym teacher anymore because of cutbacks...). The mandatory curriculum is based on abstinence and does not allow her to discuss condom use or any other contraception. She is supposed to instruct students on how to say "no" to sex and how not to be pressured by their peers. She can tell them that the reasons why they should wait are because they will get STDs or get pregnant. She can talk about STD superficially--mentioning stats and vague symptoms. There is a lot of not talking about sex in sex education. She said that based on the questions that kids ask, they are clueless, but she can't answer questions that are about taboo subjects. She can lose her job--and the principal is usually sitting in on the day that the school has it's seminars. I have two other friends that teach in NYC public schools and they have said similar things about the problems with sex ed.

Considering that the study takes place in NYC, I can see why teens know nothing about how HIV is transmitted.

www.rethinkingschools.org...

Apparently, other parts of the country are basically the same. Some states use textbooks that were produced by religious groups that donated them to school boards, which contain blatant misinformation. Unfortunately, this is the state of sex education in America. People have been trying to stop premarital sex since the dark ages--and yet the majority of people aren't keeping their "virginity oaths" past 18. It is a fantasy to think that not teaching teens about sex will make them abstain--80% of them are having sex by 19. They need to know that HIV/AIDS can kill them and they need to use a condom if they are going to have sex--unfortunately, teachers will get fired if they tell them this...

www.washingtonpost.com...

My scenario is that there is infact this rapid onset, as has been reported. And that the current programme of sex ed, which is the programme you describe, is ineffective, de facto

Given that, to prevent millions more from becomming infected, and getting inffected with a rapid untreatable variant, why not withhold treatment ( to increase public fear of aids?). We are talking about limiting the number of people suffering from aids symptoms and dying of the disease no? SO what sit idle and not just allow, but create (as a society) the evolutionary conditions requisite to make this rapid onset&untreatable type more fit? Do nothing and the current batch of aids patients wait another decade to die from it, but meanwhile they are replaced by an even greater number of people who die horribly and with much suffering.

Generally, viruses need something to fight against to mutate. Why are antibiotics becoming less useful? Because we take them too often and viruses are becoming resistant. If we used them less, they would be more effective.

Leaving AIDS patients untreated won't "speed-up" the onset of a "super-virus" if such a thing exists (there is only one confirmed case as of today--the reports of a case in California is not confirmed & the 2 cases in Canada were not a "supervirus".) If that was the case, Africa would be a hotbed of "super-AIDS." The hope is the science will stay ahead of the virus mutations and control the current cases to a point where the viral load is reduced to minimal levels, increasing life-expectancy to several decades. That also comes with behavior modification--whether it is abstinence or safe-sex. Considering that nearly everyone has premarital sex and infidelity in marriage is anywhere from 60 to 80%, I would say that teaching safe-sex and accurate information on transmission is more realistic.

www.thenewstribune.com...

People with HIV/AIDs aren't an isolated group of homosexuals, drug users, freaks and felons[p/quote]
Excuse me, but I never even suggested that. And I take great offense if you infact are implying that I do suggest it. I can only assume that I have misunderstood your drift in the above. Is that correct?

I don't think that you have misunderstood it, but I am not sure why you are offended. You singled out mentally-ill miscreants that enjoy getting a fatal disease as a basis for your argument. I don't think that you would have used the Rolling Stone article if you didn't believe that these "bug-chasers" were a significant and growing part of the population. You also made a judgement about the teens that was rather harsh--considering that most teens are sexually active, why are these teens somehow more permissive or casual than others? Because they have HIV/AIDS? They clearly have not been properly educated about their illness--why is this an offense punishable by death?

Obviously I disagree. It seems to me as if you are advocating the victimization of AIDS patients to create a massive cautionary tale--the suggestion that this is somehow limiting the number of people suffering is a bit disingenuous as you mentioned it as an afterthought. I also doubt that this kind of "mercy killing" would be appreciated when these people are going through great lengths to live.

Why use an obscure example of aberrant behavior that clearly doesn't represent the majority of the population as a basis for an argument to kill hundreds of thousands of people? Why jump to negative conclusions about teenagers being permissive instead of uninformed? This suggests a bias towards people who contract AIDS and explains why you are so willing to throw them away.

The fact that you are singling out AIDS patients to euthanize for the "greater good" is even more telling. Are you suggesting that we ignore the will of a few hundred thousand people who obviously want to live an extra ten, twenty, or thirty years to teach young America about the perils of unprotected sex? Can't this be accomplished by having P.Diddy create an educational video instead?

The comment that it isn't worth saving a population that is going to die anyway, mainly due to their self-deafeating social behavior can be said about people who smoke, people who are obese, and people who are alcoholics. Why not suggest that we forcefeed fat people a pound of lard every day or put more toxins in cigarettes to speed up these people's deaths? Just imagine how much we would save on our healthcare premiums if these people were taken out of the gene pool.... Then again, there would be virtually no one left on the planet if we eliminated everyone who engaged in some form of destructive behavior that resulted in illness.

And how will the globe and history look upon a social decision to allow a more virulent, more terrible, and more destructive virus come into being? The decision to do nothing when aids was spreading the first time was a great folly. COuld not this similiar decision be seen as again doing nothing?

I don't understand the logic here--are you suggesting that allowing a virulent strain of AIDS to ravage new generations of uneducated teens would somehow make the world look upon us more favorably?

Originally posted by noctu
viruses mutate over time anyways if you apply this to hiv/aids then are you willing to apply this to anti biotics as well? I bet your not

I am well aware of the fact that viruses undergo evolution. If you notice I explained that the virus is going to behave like any other evolving thing, its going to adapt to its environment. The environment of HIV is in part the actions of human beings. By behaving in this bizzare manner of spreading the infection wildly, the environment HIV is in has been altered, altered in such a way that the rapid onset and drug resistant strain is 'favoured' over the regular strain, or even a strain that is merely drug resistant but not rapid onset. What was that last bit, it made no sense. AIDS is not treated with anti-biotics, rather anti-virals. Neither of these are 'evolving'.

surfup
If scientists and researchers had taken this kind of attitude a hundred years ago, a lot of us would be suffering from Polio

How do you figure? I do not suggest that treatments not be explored. Besides, what if by treating polio and trying to eradicate it we ended up creating a super polio that was worse? I mean, which is worse, having polio around today or having super-polio around today?

Contrary to the notion that the virus evolution is bad, it is not. There are many possible side effects to this. For example evolution from the wild type could lead to a newer form of virus, that could co exist with us.

Indeed, and this is precisely my point. We have created a situation where a more dangerous form of the virus is the more fit form. what if we could treat the disease evolutionarily? What if we could create the conditions where a less virulent, a really placid form of the disease is the most fit?

I do not mean to urgently suggest that this is doable, but, think about it. THe virus only 'wants' to reproduce itself in the greatest numbers. What if the environment can be altered such that the most successful viruses are the ones that kill the least, that are least harmful? Having lo infection rates is what does this in other diseases. In those other diseases, when people are spreading the disease around more rapidly, the more virulent, the 'worse' form of the disease is the fitest. So you start with, for example, a bacteria that causes extreme diarhhea in a community, spread thru water, because they have primitive sewage conveyance and treatment systems and even ground water contamination. Infection rates are high. The disease is 'urged' via natural selection and becomes extremely virulent, to the point that people are dying from diahhrea, and its being spread even faster. Now comes in the epidemiologist who notes all this, and rather than focusing on merely treating people who have the infection, to closing up the sewer lines and treating the water and limiting infection. Now the virus types are under different conditions, and now the less virulent form that doesn't kill and doesn't isolate victims from the rest of the population becomes more fit, because there is no route for high infection rates that favoured the more destructive form. And now the 'epidemic' isn't killing people and spreading everywhere, and rather than having zones of death you have tourists only drinking bottled water and such.

vanguard
look up Eugenics to fight your corner.

Perhaps it is you who should look up eugenics. Then you will see that this is not eugenics. If anything its a 'eugenics' programme on the virus, not on the humans.

lmgnyc
People are living with AIDS.

I agree that there are long term survivors, some apparently from the earliest populations that were originally infected. Nevertheless, there is no cure for aids. There are treatment programmes that can delay onset of AIDS, for decades apparently, but no cure.

Are you suggesting that these people should be abandoned?

In truth I suggest nothing, merely question the epidemiology and possible ramifications of these terribly disturbing new developments, such as the 'bug chasers' and these murderous and moronic kids who have unprotected sex even tho they know that they are infected.
[qu0ote]The mandatory curriculum is based on abstinence and does not allow her to discuss condom use or any other contraception
Well then I stand corrected. I am quite shocked. This is especially relevatory since a large portion of the study was conducted on NYC kids.

I would say that teaching safe-sex and accurate information on transmission is more realistic.

I would tend to agree, especially since in this case that is not being done in the population under consideration.

Why use an obscure example of aberrant behavior that clearly doesn't represent the majority of the population as a basis for an argument to kill hundreds of thousands of people?

Because of the economics of death. Kill thousands to save millions. I myself can see no arguement around it if it comes down to that. Obviously that is not the case here. My concern was that it might become the case.

Can't this be accomplished by having P.Diddy create an educational video instead?

Sure, why not? If it can be effective than its certainly preferable.

mainly due to their self-deafeating social behavior

The only population I was concerned with in terms of their own behaviour are the criminals who have AIDS and have unprotected sex with unsuspecting partners anyway. I can see no sense in continuing to treat people like that, in effect enabling them to infect more people.

Why not suggest that we forcefeed fat people a pound of lard every day or put more toxins in cigarettes to speed up these people's deaths?

If the situation were similar to the one I outlined orignally, indeed why not? If our current anti-smoking campaign resulted in cigarettes that jumped out of your mouth and attacked and killed other people, would it not be advisable to change the program? Obviously that ludicrous and unrealistic, but a rapid-onset and drug-resistant HIV variant is not ludicrous nor unrealistic. IF it is caused by unalterable social factors, then, what to do?

are you suggesting that allowing a virulent strain of AIDS to ravage new generations of uneducated teens would somehow make the world look upon us more favorably?

If you were in some future population where superaids was killing millions and was untreatable and resulted in the most horrendous and agonizing deaths, would you have wanted the previous generations to have coddled and brought about the super disease? Would you not prefer to live with something similar to the current less virulent and treatable version of the disease?

I merely suggest that its possible that this could infact be the situation. I do not suggest that it is infact the situation. Given the 'worse case scenario', is with-holding treatment an option? IF it prevents the new form and there are no alternatives? Or is everyone morally obligated to allways treat the disease, even if by treating individuals the epidemic is made many times worse? That is my fear.

there's one thing that has been left out of this thread completely. Now i'm not saying that this is 100% correct, but i remember seeing the series "Evolution" that was on BBC. Part 4 or 5 dealt with TB and AIDS and how it played into evolution. There was an AIDS researcher who basically said that while HIV evolves to be immune to the different cocktails of drugs, when you take the person off of the drugs, the virus devolves, and the same cocktails can be used later on with the same results. So what I gathered from this, is that all we would need to do, is let the so-called "super-virus" do its thing for a little while, maybe a year, and then we give it the same drug that it was immune to before. That could be one thing that would lead to a very liveable aids condition. Basically just rotate the different drugs in and out, when one stops working as well, switch over to the new one, and then start over again. Again, I have no idea what i'm talking about, i'm not claiming to. and to slightly add to this argument being had, Nygdan, your arguments seem rather rash and extreme, and unworkable in a real world scenario. people care for other people, people have sex, and people ultimately do what they want to do. You have to come across with understanding, and let people do what they want to do, but help them do it more safely. thats it. and if some dumb bunshole comes along and screws it up for everybody, so what, thats life.

Nygdan,
you missed my point on antibiotics there are viruses that would be more so deadly then hiv because they are air born like TB that are treated with anti biotics.

infact we have resistnant TB strains running around now mainly because imagrants who dont finnish their course of meds not only that we also have super resistant bacteria.

also you coment about the delay of the onset of aids and aids is defined by the Tcells falling below 200 however there are long term aids survivers as well now its not just about delaying the onset of aids so much as it is preventing the OI's (opportunistic infections)


just because someone has an aids diagnoses doesnt mean the fight is lost not by far.

a big part of the problem is that people are poorly educated but its partly the negs fault as well because even with all the information out there negs tend to bury their heads in the sand about it, as negs tend to engage in risky behavior and then not get tested and keep engangeing in these behaviors even if they think they may have been exposed to the virus ironicly enough.

so even the non bug chaseing negs propetuate the cycle more so then the mentally ill bug chasers do.

and why do negs tend to avoid getting tested?
well I have talked to a lot of people that think they may have been explosed and will list the 3 most comon things I hear

1) they try to self diagnose by asking the symptoms of hiv (a big mistake)
2) their medical insurance is paid by their boss/company and are scared that their boss/company will find out
3) they live in a small town and are scared that word will get out if they get tested and/or if the test comes back pos

now I realise I am only 1 person and cant give any actual statistics however the reason people avoid getting tested should be looked into by the people who can and get them addressed because this is a big propetuator of the cycle.

lastly besides "medical personel" the majority of the people trying to fight the spread of the virus are actually pos people!

the only negs I really see trying to do anything about it are medical personel, pos people or people who have someone close in their lives that are infected.