chcr
Too cute for words
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
If someone you care about who does nothing that, in your view, is wrong gets it? Is the money wasted then?
Anti-AIDS Enzyme!!
- Thread starter MrBishop
- Start date
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
If someone you care about who does nothing that, in your view, is wrong gets it? Is the money wasted then?
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
The ARV drugs are barely available in the first world, they're certainly not available in the third and the treatment to protect in utero or intrapartum transmission doesn't exist. Right now, they're studying how antibodies in the mother can help protect the transmission (mostly in relation to Hep), but in this case that depends on how advanced the HIV is in the mother. They're also hoping that ARV treatment in the mother will ehlp increase those odds...but as is, In 2005, around 700,000 children under 15 became infected with HIV, mainly through mother-to-child transmission. About 90% of these MTCT infections occurred in Africa where AIDS is beginning to reverse decades of steady progress in child survival.
A+B+C (when used correctly) is the most cost effective way to prevent more people from getting AIDS, but research like this one is the best way of putting an end to AIDS.
Mother Nature is one nasty & unforgiving bitch. She'll always up the stakes.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
He didn't make a judgement. He made a decision. If you engage in risky behavior, then you deserve to face the consequences of your actions. The fact remains that illegal drug use and sexual promiscuity are the primary reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS, and showing pictures/links to children with the disease won't change that fact one iota. You can pitch that 'innocents with AIDS' crap all you like, but if mom/dad had kept their pants up/stayed monogamous, or kept that dirty needle out of their arm, those innocents wouldn't have HIV. Go on, and think the opposite if it makes you feel better, but most folks knew about how HIV was spread back in the early 1980's. If they don't want to listen, then quarantine them, and let them die...
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
He didn't make a judgement. He made a decision. If you engage in risky behavior, then you deserve to face the consequences of your actions. The fact remains that illegal drug use and sexual promiscuity are the primary reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS, and showing pictures/links to children with the disease won't change that fact one iota. You can pitch that 'innocents with AIDS' crap all you like, but if mom/dad had kept their pants up/stayed monogamous, or kept that dirty needle out of their arm, those innocents wouldn't have HIV. Go on, and think the opposite if it makes you feel better, but most folks knew about how HIV was spread back in the early 1980's. If they don't want to listen, then quarantine them, and let them die...
The sins of the parents visited unto the third generation? Nice.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
You don't have to like it, but if people had responsibility, this wouldn't be a discussion. You also seem to ignore exactly what I say, and interpret it the way you like. Try again, and pay attention.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
You don't have to like it, but if people had responsibility, this wouldn't be a discussion. You also seem to ignore exactly what I say, and interpret it the way you like. Try again, and pay attention.
What you seem to be saying is that all/most of those with AIDS brought it upon themselves and if their kids get it... too bad. Wheat with the chaff. Let them all die.
Dat's a bit harsh mr Bish!
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
That's not what I said at all. The children should be taken care of...adults should not, unless the medical community is at fault. It used to be that diseased folks were seperated out from society (leper colonies et al), but now, individual rights trump societies safety.
Here's my final take on this...and do try to pay attention...Risky behaviors are just that...risky. If you can't handle the consequences, then don't engage in the behavior. It's not rocket science...then again, how many folks can handle any consequences at all anymore?
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
This isn't a morality issue, it's a survival issue. It's a disease linked with our ability to reproduce ourselves as a species.
You're assuming that everyone involved knew and understood the risks involved and went ahead with the action.
You're also assuming that the consequences for their actions involves only themselves as individuals. They're going to die...that's the consequences for them. They've mostly accepted that they're going to die, though who are we to deny them the fight for survival?
If you remove the need for the GVT to care for the dependents ... you save money. Finding a cure for AIDS will remove the need for the GVT to care for these dependents...it'll also save the lives of the innocent victims of AIDS. Every penny spent of finding a cure will save $100 on maintenance of the innocent victims and support of the dependents.
Closing your eyes and saying "Lalalalala..I can't see you or hear you. You don't exist" doesn't cut it. You can't just seperate out those afflicted with AIDS onto some island somewhere and forget about them...it'd have to be a mighty big island. Australia might be able to handle that many people, but then you'd have to deal with getting all those people rounded up and shipped there. This is TOO BIG for that kind of thinking.
Either society as a whole learns to deal with this disease or this disease will deal with society as a whole.
You're assuming that everyone involved knew and understood the risks involved and went ahead with the action.
You're also assuming that the consequences for their actions involves only themselves as individuals. They're going to die...that's the consequences for them. They've mostly accepted that they're going to die, though who are we to deny them the fight for survival?
If they have a spouse, children or any other dependents..those dependents will suffer financially, emotionally etc.. because of this. The costs associated with the GVT taking care of those dependents is where the greater portion of the moneys is being spent (AIDS widows and orphans).
If you remove the need for the GVT to care for the dependents ... you save money. Finding a cure for AIDS will remove the need for the GVT to care for these dependents...it'll also save the lives of the innocent victims of AIDS. Every penny spent of finding a cure will save $100 on maintenance of the innocent victims and support of the dependents.
Closing your eyes and saying "Lalalalala..I can't see you or hear you. You don't exist" doesn't cut it. You can't just seperate out those afflicted with AIDS onto some island somewhere and forget about them...it'd have to be a mighty big island. Australia might be able to handle that many people, but then you'd have to deal with getting all those people rounded up and shipped there. This is TOO BIG for that kind of thinking.
Either society as a whole learns to deal with this disease or this disease will deal with society as a whole.
chcr
Too cute for words
Taking action requires assuming personal responsibility.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
If you know the risks involved, sure. If you think that the worst that could happen is that you get someone pregnant and you're willing to face those consequences.
I can't find the stats now, but it's postulated that up to 27% of those afflicted with HIV in the Americas don't know it...and are likely to be passing it on.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
I don't believe so.. it might've been the CDC.
Altron
Well-Known Member
No, you misread it. He said that 27% of HIV+ people don't know that they have it, not that 27% of people are HIV+