AIDS ?

[lyghtningbyrd]

OK.. this is going to sound like a conspiracy theory, but it's just a thought...

Here are some facts about AIDS that I got from www.aids.com

. 3.1 million men, women and children died from AIDS in 2002;

. 5 million men, women and children were newly infected with HIV in 2002;

. 25 million children will be orphans by 2010 because of AIDS;

. 42 million men, women and children currently living with HIV / AIDS;

. 70 million men, women and children may die of AIDS in the next 20 years.


My question is this:

With our planet dangerously overpopulated as it is, is a cure really going to solve more problems than are being fixed by the epidemic. I'm not being insensitive, just logical. My deepest empathy to those who know someone or have HIV.

So, if there was a cure for HIV, would the cure be suppressed by governments of the world? Or have I just heard too many conspiracy theories?

Also, is it outlandish to assume the governments of the world wouldn't use viruses specifically for population control? (SARS?)

This is purely conjecture. I certainly don't have any proof, but something to think about.

 

[Michael Redman]

1) It would require a large, worldwide group of cooperating, evil medical researchers.
2) It would require technology we don't have.
3) It would require the mother of all successful secret conspiracies.
4) It would be a dangerous and inefficient means to its ignoble end.

Other than that, why not?

 

[Jon_in_london]

Not a good thing. AIDS is a major factor in maintianing poverty, particulary in the third world. poverty leads to poor education and higher birth rates ergo no decrease in Africas population despite high mortatitly from AIDS

 

[JamesM]

Also, is it outlandish to assume the governments of the world wouldn't use viruses specifically for population control? (SARS?)

Here are the number of deaths from SARS so far for China:

Hong Kong: 150
Mainland China: 148

I have to say, these 300 deaths are unlikely to make a huge dent in the 1.26 billion people currently resident there.

Therefore the answer to your question, in my opinion, is yes, it is rather outlandish to assume governments would use SARS for population control.

 

[aerocontrols]

Just because it annoys me...

Hong Kong: 150
Mainland China: 148

I would add a little qualifier to that '148' as it is in all probability complete horsepucky.

China lies about numbers like this. The true number of cases in mainland China is most likely much bigger.

Still, you're right that SARS isn't putting a dent in the population any time soon.

MattJ

 

[Frostbite]

If I were a mad scientist wanting to exterminate mankind with a virus, I'd create one that infects you and stays invisible for 20 years, then give you a heart attack or cancer. If you can spot it or put a nametag on it, chances are that with today's medical technology, it won't take long before the outbreak is contained.

 

[Michael Redman]

If ebola took as long as AIDS to show, or if AIDS transmitted as easily as ebola, we would be toast.

 

[aggle_rithm]

If ebola took as long as AIDS to show, or if AIDS transmitted as easily as ebola, we would be toast.

I think if AIDS were transmitted easily, it would have been cured by now. As long as it stays confined mainly to powerless and/or unpopular segments of society, the research is going to go at a snail's pace.

Quick-killing diseases like ebola don't start epidemics because when there is an outbreak, it quickly snuffs itself out by killing everyone in the area. Not a particularly successful strategy for the virus.

 

[Frostbite]

Heh, the most successful strategy for a virus is to not kill the host. Like the common cold or flu, which have been around for thousands of years and are alive and prosperous.

 

[Michael Redman]

I think if AIDS were transmitted easily, it would have been cured by now

You mean like the way they cured the cold?

 

[JamesM]

I think if AIDS were transmitted easily, it would have been cured by now. As long as it stays confined mainly to powerless and/or unpopular segments of society, the research is going to go at a snail's pace.

I'm not sure the lack of a cure is due to a lack of urgency, though. Cancer hasn't been cured yet either, and that's not confined to powerless or unpopular segments of society.

From a look at the NIH webpage, NIAID got about $1.5bn of funding in the year 2001, and about two thirds of that went to AIDS/HIV research. Only the NCI (cancer research) got more funding.

 

[EdipisReks]

Quick-killing diseases like ebola don't start epidemics because when there is an outbreak, it quickly snuffs itself out by killing everyone in the area. Not a particularly successful strategy for the virus.

this is only the case when it infects people in isolated areas. i imagine that if an ebola outbreak happened in say, New York City, that the epidemic would be much longer lasting and farther reaching unless immediate quarantine was applied.

Frostbite

If I were a mad scientist wanting to exterminate mankind with a virus, I'd create one that infects you and stays invisible for 20 years, then give you a heart attack or cancer. If you can spot it or put a nametag on it, chances are that with today's medical technology, it won't take long before the outbreak is contained.

today's medical technology, let alone the technology in twenty years, may also cure the cancer or heart attack regardless of what the orginal cause was. this ignores any possible advancement due to a singularity event which could possibly allow the basic virus to be detected before any effects were felt by man.

if i were a mad scientist, i would construct a prion that was spead in an airborne manner and aggressively attacked human brain tissue, yet had a certain dormancy of effect that would allow it to spread to large segments of the population before the actual illness was detected. afterall, with today's and likely tomorrow's technology, a prion of certain properties is unstoppable if it has an efficient method of spreading, unless you are willing to kill those currently infected (or quarantine them, if you catch it in time, though this is unlikely due to the dormancy). this scenario, of course, ignores any possible singularity event.

 

[lyghtningbyrd]

I don't understand why it's so hard to cure AIDS. Is it constantly mutating? I really don't know much about viruses...

If anyone would like to explain in sort of laymen's terms..?

Also, if there was more funding for AIDS research or cancer research, would it actually help? I've always wondered why it is necessary to have all this funding to cure something. Why is it so important to have money to cure a disease? If someone could explain that to me I would appreciate it. That may actually be more of an economic issue.

And, if funding does correlate directly with curing a disease, why don't we take a little bit of that 75 BILLION dollar "homeland security" budget out for some research groups. I think I was right the first time - that our government doesn't really care about curing AIDS.

Could someone also explain to me exactly how organizations get money for curing diseases. Is a majority of funding from charities/donations, or is it government grants?

I just realized that's a lot of questions...hahah
If anyone wants to take a stab at any of those, I would appreciate it.

 

[EdipisReks]

I don't understand why it's so hard to cure AIDS. Is it constantly mutating?

yes.

 

[Michael Redman]

I don't understand why it's so hard to cure AIDS.

How would you cure it, if it's so easy?

 

[arcticpenguin]

I don't understand why it's so hard to cure AIDS. Is it constantly mutating? I really don't know much about viruses...

HIV is a retrovirus. After infecting a cell it can insert DNA into the victim's chromosomes, where it could lay in wait for a long time.

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't understand why it's so hard to cure AIDS. Is it constantly mutating?

As EdipisReks said, yes.

Not only is it constantly mutating, it has an exceedingly high mutation rate, far higher than even most viruses. That's why they usually treat it with "cocktails" of therapies, trying to hit every strain they can.

That being said, there has been tremendous advances in the treatment of AIDS, to regulate and suppress it. However, I don't see any cure for it in the near future.

Michael Redman's comparison to the common cold is right on the money. It's kind of like trying to cure influenza - we are starting to do a better job of being able to create flu vaccines, but they still don't work as well as we would like (didn't work for me last year).

 

[Phaycops]

Also, if there was more funding for AIDS research or cancer research, would it actually help? I've always wondered why it is necessary to have all this funding to cure something. Why is it so important to have money to cure a disease? ...

Huh. You must not hang out in academia much. It takes money to study anything. How do you think the researchers pay bills and rent and feed, clothe and get medical care for themselves and their families? Where do you think all the equipment comes from? Not to mention that this sort of research takes an enormous amount of time, during which equipment fails, researchers die or get better jobs, etc.

I apologize if this is snitty, but I'm just astounded at the lack of thought that went into this question.... but I guess a lot of people think this way, or there'd be more money for research of all kinds.

 

[lyghtningbyrd]

I apologize if this is snitty, but I'm just astounded at the lack of thought that went into this question.... but I guess a lot of people think this way, or there'd be more money for research of all kinds.

...What?

Geez...
When I wrote this, I was thinking about the 75 billion dollar 'homeland security' money. I was thinking that even if we gave all of that money to AIDS research instead, it may not help. Money can only go so far. So it got me thinking about why it costs so much. Trust me, I am all for the massive funding of anything scientific. I think it would be interesting to see a tab of everything a research group spent money on.

I'm sorry if I have inconvenienced you in any way?

Michael Redman's comparison to the common cold is right on the money. It's kind of like trying to cure influenza - we are starting to do a better job of being able to create flu vaccines, but they still don't work as well as we would like (didn't work for me last year).

Wow. I'd never really thought about the fact that we haven't cured the common cold. Viruses are scary as hell. It's such an amazing concept though. A virus. This combination of molecules that has arisen out of the chaos of nature and evolution. It's hard to put into words. They're like little robots.

 

[Phaycops]

...What?

Geez...
When I wrote this, I was thinking about the 75 billion dollar 'homeland security' money. I was thinking that even if we gave all of that money to AIDS research instead, it may not help. Money can only go so far. So it got me thinking about why it costs so much. Trust me, I am all for the massive funding of anything scientific. I think it would be interesting to see a tab of everything a research group spent money on.

I'm sorry if I have inconvenienced you in any way?

Not inconvienienced, just suprised.

I'm a geology major, first of all, so take any analogies to medicine with a grain of salt. Anyway, I just finished a class that was designed as a sort of mock consulting project (complete with trial!), and part of the object was to stick to a budget. Things add up pretty quickly. I can give you a copy of our budget if you'd like to see exactly where the money went.

Also, these researchers don't just get a large sum of money with no questions asked. They submit, as part of the grant application process, a budget saying how much they'll spend on each thing. If they go over-budget, it needs to be justified. So asking for a "tab of everything a research group spent money on" wouldn't exactly turn up big secrets or conspiracies or anything.

Anyway, I did apologize for being snitty. It just seems like if you know anything about how science is "done," it's kind of a stupid, or at least redundant question, is all.