http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071020103343.htm

I believe I speak for many a person when I say WOOO!

Hmm, if this is true, that is great.

wow. Why wasn't there more news coverage on this? The findings were published August 4th.

Digg had it. Am I the only one that says "And now you should have to have a license to breed."

This will be a good thing, but will make the issue of overpopulation all the more pressing.

I hate to say it, but this time I agree with Mystic.

Well see theres one small thing that Josh brought up that I'm still a little foggy over. Are they still carriers of the disease after the treatment?

yes.

this is bull****.

i'll believe it after the disease is eliminated. maybe.

They are only "cured" for as long as they take the medication.

No I have to funnel your income to prevent you from spending too much on idiotic purchases.

Like Bottled Water.

>.>

No like frilly underwear.

Not necessarily...do they know if the HIV virus will die off if it cannot replicate over time?

It's called research. Stop looking for instant gratification.

yes, Mr. "troll".

I see nothing new here.

Combination therapy (aka HAART), has been used for a while, which normalized CD4 T cell counts. There is nothing about a cure to "get rid" of HIV, only prevent AIDS.

In other words, this is ye olde news.

Must be due to something else, as again, this form of therapy has been around for a while, relatively speaking.

You'd probably have like one dime.

And it would be a fake.

Because you're crazy.

This was revolutionary, and you have no idea what you are talking about. It isn't a cure, but it allows individuals to actually live a semblance of a normal life.



No, because the nature of what it is. It integrates itself into the host DNA, and replicates along with the cells. You'd need to actually excise the integrated viral DNA to actually "cure" a person (i.e. you can have a viral load of 0, and a while after you stop HAART, your load jumps back up). HIV does not just infect CD4 cells, by the way. There are multiple cell types that are effected.

I have never, ever heard of a cure for cancer in my life.

[Why do I think mystic probably thinks the governments of the world have one already and arent giving it to the public?]

I think he means that you always hear about potential cancer breakthroughs, but nothing past that.

no it's called stop making sensational claims every time you find out something new about aids.

The website is only a website. I don't see what's wrong with the researchers becoming positive over their research. I don't see where it clearly states "CURE".

Please point to news stories you have heard/seen on the news that claim "cure for cancer" every week to the point they annoy you. Without using Google.

It looks to me like this gets rid of AIDS but not HIV. People don't seem to understand the difference. AIDS occurs when your immune system falls to dangerously low levels. HIV is the virus that causes it. This treatment "cures" AIDS, but the second they stop taking it it probably starts the cycle again and AIDS can return.

Thus, it's not really a viable option for poor countries that need an HIV cure most.

Oh, bah.

According to Wikipedia, people who stick to a regimen of combination therapy can go about a decade before resistance develops. So it's not that amazing.

Mystic, please make another thread describing your definition of society, and the role of government. Include with this definition your sexual identity, spiritual belief system, and heritage. In other words, describe the many facets of your person that will be used to justify your unfair treatment (which could include death) in your consequentialist world.

Since you're too batty to post a coherent thread, I'll answer the question for you. A society is a group of people that agree to live together in peace. A proper and useful government is a body that enforces that peace. A society that is truly based on the like minded idea freedom; not on race, religion, or sex; must rely on their government to protect the freedoms of the majority and the minority. Your idea of total freedom does not allow for a free society. Society includes an element of Government. A truly free society would squander the idea of peace, as there is no room for society in a world without government.

Your private law enforcement, and private charity, and assumed goodness of mankind will discriminate. They will not protect the minority. They will minimize and destroy the minority. (Not that our government has it right. I'm simply saying that your alternative is the furthest from freedom for all.) You want to be part of this society where you are free from being killed, ignored, and starved because of who your father or mother is?

Be thankful that you only sacrifice your ability to have an XBox360 for this society.

Bravo Kirby.

Without taking this thread further off track, I'd like to make a specific mention that income is also included in that list of things used against people who are discriminated against. Being stupid and poor doesn't equal lesser being, and I think your model for economy doesn't recognize that part of "freedom" at all. (What's funny is that I am, in general, a libertarian myself. I also recognize that we are a libertarian people in an imperfect world, and thus we require an element of socialistic government that can be held accountable for not upholding freedom. I think most libertarians practice economic discrimination.)

And to tie this into the thread: I am not saying that we need to kill anyone. I'm not even saying that we need to limit people's freedom to spook. I'm saying that we as a world need to realize that the potential cure for AIDs or cancer will be our downfall. To keep our freedoms, we need to agree on a solution to this very real, and very widespread problem. This wont just affect Southern Africa, this will affect us all.

Personally im more concerned with Peak Oil.

"If we can put a man on the moon, then we can put a man with with aids on the moon. And one day, we can put everyone with aids on the moon."

-Sarah Silverman

This isn't really news, and it isn't a cure for aids.

It's a treatment.


I think in order to qualify as a cure it should be permenant. This is only as permenant as long as you can afford it. (PS, supposedly it's pretty ****ing expensive)

Woah, wait. T-Cells? Is this like... the T-Virus...

Will this cure cause Resident Evil?

Totally, only your parkour skills will save us all from the horrible zombies.

Yeah, I think it'll be a while until they make some sort of vaccination to cure HIV or AIDS. I also think it'll cost a lot too. Hopefully someone will make a cure for HIV or AIDS in the near future.

actually if it gets rid of AIDS (Acquired immune deficiency syndrome) then it is in fact a cure for aids. however curing AIDS does not cure HIV, the cause of aids. and if you dont cure HIV then you can have a recurrence of AIDS.

It isn't getting rid of aids, it's suppressing it. It's a treatment.

AIDS is a description of the effects of HIV. its the same principle as if you have a cold virus. say i get a runny nose from a cold. i can cure the runny nose, but unless i no longer have the cold virus my runny nose can come back. that doesn't mean it wasn't cured, even if for a short time.

...you know what we may actually agree with each other without knowing it... you can cure a particular outbreak of aids, but unless you get rid of the HIV you will get aids again. aids in and of it self is not even curable, not without first curing HIV.

...

This isn't a cure for aids. It's a treatment.

Stop the treatment, and it comes back.

No, that's exactly what it means. Your runny nose isn't completely cured until the virus is out of your body.

I think I'll start this post by saying that reading this made me want to shoot myself in the face.

This is a treatment for AIDS. Not a cure. If you stop the treatment, AIDS comes back. This is especially illustrated by the fact that HIV causes AIDS and this treatment does not eliminate HIV. what I'm saying here that AIDS is part of HIV, so without curing HIV you cannot cure AIDS.
Look at it this way - AIDS is a symptom of HIV. All it does is treat the symptom.

Furthermore, treating the symptom of a cold is not treating the cold virus. Especially when there is no cure for the common cold. Didn't you learn anything in primary school?

Except you can live for quite a long time with HIV and never develop AIDS.

And that Sarah Silverman quote is funny. I love her.