Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

HIV vaccine news

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
HIV Positive - 07 May 2007 00:29 GMT
I like the way the author (of the article below) compares Kennedy's
challenge to putting a man on the moon with Clinton's challenge to
find an HIV vaccine within ten years.  A least Kenney's gave science
something to aim at.

As usual there is a moan about lack of funding for the research.  Does
anyone know how much money has been spent on HIV vaccine research?
This article <http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i30/8430grant.html>
suggests over $4billion since 1989.  Presumably that's only US
funding, but I doubt there are other countries pouring money in to it.

<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003693910_sundaymcelrath06.html>:
"In May 1997, President Bill Clinton set a deadline for the scientific
community to find a vaccine for HIV within 10 years. Many of us in
that community felt like we were personally called to take on this
challenge.

Regrettably, we didn't get there; there is no fully licensed, safe
vaccine to prevent HIV.

[...]

There's good news and bad news. The good news is that we are closer
than ever before to finding a safe vaccine that will reduce the impact
of HIV infection on persons at risk. It is quite possible that
evidence for such a vaccine will be available in three to five years.

But the bad news is that we still may be far away from knowing how to
make a vaccine to prevent HIV, and no one can say when we will be able
to do so. There are still intermediate challenges to meet and
overcome, but we are closing in on this goal.

[...]

When Clinton made his challenge, he was most likely invoking the
spirit of his idol, John F. Kennedy, who called on American science
and industry to put a man on the moon and bring him home, within 10
years. Kennedy asked for the moon, and got it."
Signature

Should I begin ART?
Vote: <http://hiv-positive.freehostia.com/vote/>

monty1945@lycos.com - 07 May 2007 05:14 GMT
With Nixon's "war on cancer, " the cure was supposed to be found by
1980.  Our leaders allowed the same fools who failed in that endeavor
to control the "AIDS" ("GRID" at the time) investigation, with
predictable results.  I propose that medical scientists be given
dictates about what they must accomplish.  If one says he or she
cannot do it, that person should be fired, and those who present a
reasonable plan should be given the resources instead.  Think about
how many generals Lincoln had to try out before he found Grant, for
instance.  To be honest, I would not want Gallo to treat a pet of
mine, or even the squirrels in my back yard, for example.  The current
system is not a dismal failure, it is a spectacular one, because those
in charge have generated much more misery and death than if shamans
and witchdoctors had been used in their place.
Death - 07 May 2007 15:51 GMT
> I like the way the author (of the article below) compares Kennedy's
> challenge to putting a man on the moon with Clinton's challenge to
> find an HIV vaccine within ten years.  A least Kenney's gave science
> something to aim at.

Once again you assume a cure or a prevention medicine is the goal.
Ridding the world of the un-wanted, un-needed and the un-necessary
is the goal.

Everyone is Not at risk for HIV.

AIDS develops as a result of becoming infected with the HIV virus. Although anyone can contract
the virus, certain groups of people have been more likely to acquire the virus than others. It
is important to be aware of AIDS and to study its risks and how it is transmitted, especially
if you are in an at-risk group for acquiring the virus.

One of the groups most susceptible to acquiring the HIV virus are intravenous drug users. These
users may be high-risk individuals in any event. The sharing of needles among users only
increases the risk of contracting the virus. Needles hold tiny amounts of blood that if
infected with HIV can be passed during injection to another user unless the needles are cleaned
and sterilized, or, better yet, disposed of. Anyone who shares intravenous needles runs the
risk of contracting HIV, particularly since people injecting different types of drugs are not
thinking clearly about their risks to begin with.

One of the first groups to report symptoms of what would be coined HIV and eventually AIDS was
homosexual males. These men were some of the first carriers of the virus and its resulting
disease back in the late 1970s and early 1980s in the United States. The virus is still a major
concern to homosexual men today because it is spread through sexual contact as well as contact
with blood and other body fluids.

A group that has more recently become susceptible to the disease is minorities, particularly
African Americans and Hispanics. Different factors may influence the prevalence of HIV in these
minority groups.
HIV Positive - 07 May 2007 19:51 GMT
>> I like the way the author (of the article below) compares Kennedy's
>> challenge to putting a man on the moon with Clinton's challenge to
>> find an HIV vaccine within ten years.  A least Kenney's gave science
>> something to aim at.

>Once again you assume a cure or a prevention medicine is the goal.
>Ridding the world of the un-wanted, un-needed and the un-necessary
>is the goal.

I think you're getting in to the realm of science fiction and
conspiracy here.

Do you follow the theory that HIV was invented to kill off
undesirables in the community?  An alternative to this scenario is
that HIV was created as a weapon and is being tested on those society
would like to be rid of.

I can understand why some might give these ideas merit.  HIV seems
very selective about the type of host it infects: gay men, drug users,
the poor, blacks.

These conspiracy theories only seem to be popular in the US.  Maybe
it's something to do with lack of trust you have in your government.
It's healthy to question, but here in Europe we tend to follow the
'cock up' theory and are more inclined to believe our governments are
simply incompetent.

>Everyone is Not at risk for HIV.

I think this is where you and I part company.  We've often been
accused of wearing the same socks (or something like that), however
our accusers forget that you believe HIV=AIDS=Death and I don't. :)
Signature

Should I begin ART?
Vote: <http://hiv-positive.freehostia.com/vote/>

Death - 07 May 2007 21:42 GMT
"HIV Positive" <hiv.positive@gmail.com> wrote in message

> I think this is where you and I part company.  We've often been
> accused of wearing the same socks (or something like that), however
> our accusers forget that you believe HIV=AIDS=Death and I don't. :)

LOL, it isn't a matter of memory, but denial for the accusers.
HIV Positive - 07 May 2007 22:24 GMT
>"HIV Positive" <hiv.positive@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> I think this is where you and I part company.  We've often been
>> accused of wearing the same socks (or something like that), however
>> our accusers forget that you believe HIV=AIDS=Death and I don't. :)

>LOL, it isn't a matter of memory, but denial for the accusers.

I've just opened a bottle of wine, so I'll be willing to believe
ANYTHING in an hour's time. :)
Signature

Should I begin ART?
Vote: <http://hiv-positive.freehostia.com/vote/>

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.