Right, but that doesn't change my point. If you've got HIV and it's developed into AIDS, you're not going to be able to permenately prevent it without curing HIV.

dictionary.com:

Cure:
1. a means of healing or restoring to health; remedy.
2. a method or course of remedial treatment, as for disease.
4. a means of correcting or relieving anything that is troublesome or detrimental
8. to restore to health.
9. to relieve or rid of something detrimental, as an illness or a bad habit.
13. to effect a cure.
14. to become cured.

*5,6,7,10,11 & 12 pertained to non health issues.

American Heritage Dictionary:

cure: n.
1. Restoration of health; recovery from disease.
2. A method or course of medical treatment used to restore health.
3. An agent, such as a drug, that restores health; a remedy.
4. Something that corrects or relieves a harmful or disturbing situation

cure: v.
1. To restore to health.
2. To effect a recovery from: cure a cold.
3. To remove or remedy (something harmful or disturbing)

cure: intr.
1. To effect a cure or recovery

... so either individual outbreaks of AIDS can be "cured" already. or AIDS is not curable, or even a thing that should be considered "curable" or "not curable". if were defining AIDS as the symptoms of HIV and HIV as the thing to be cured and NOT AIDS (because its inherently incurable without first curing HIV) then why the heck am i even arguing this point like a perturbed goob!?

Quoting dictionary definitions isn't really going to help you.

But to humour your technicality - this treatment doesn't get rid of HIV, which is deteriorating the immune system that leads to AIDS, so health still isn't restored. It just gives the illusion of health.



hey that's your prerogative

touche.

also, if you're gonna pull out dictionary definitions like a nub, at least use the OED.