Science won't sure AIDS

[Harajuku]

I just read this article by Robert Matthews, who claims that the AIDS epidemic has peaked, no thanks to science:

 

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=531

 

I agree! Time we stopped throwing money away on vaccines that don't work and focus on good old-fashioned education.

[Nevermore]

That's what they said about polio. Stay the course, science.

[insane_alien]

Harajuku, it is a combination of science and education that leads o the disease being eradicated. Science figured out how it is transmitted and how it affects the body. science has also figured out how to retard the effects of the virus. education will merely lead to a drop in the infection rate, science will cure those who have it.

[BhavinB]

The article doesn't say anything about the change in life expectancy of AIDS patients, or a measure of their lifestyle (or normalcy). Without science, AIDS patients would be AIDS victims within years of infection.

This article is just another sign of someone not realizing how difficult some things can be. He just wants fast and free, now!

[Dak]

Of course, all of the studying of HIV that's been going on hasn't in any way shape or form put us into a better position to figure out a cure/vaccine for HIV. Nor, of course, has our development of tests for HIV ever told someone that they have a disease that they should prevent passing on. Nor does HAART ever significantly increase an HIV+ persons life-span. And of course the 'educators' who tell people to wear condoms just guessed that it was an STD and then told us, whilst we were busy squandering our research grants down the pub.

[Cloud]

Isn't robert matthew's the physicist from focus magazine? He's one to complain/

 

I mean it is a fairly new disease - 25 years and nothing. What do you expect? Its complex, even for today's science.

[scicop]

Of course, all of the studying of HIV that's been going on hasn't in any way shape or form put us into a better position to figure out a cure/vaccine for HIV. Nor, of course, has our development of tests for HIV ever told someone that they have a disease that they should prevent passing on. Nor does HAART ever significantly increase an HIV+ persons life-span. And of course the 'educators' who tell people to wear condoms just guessed[/i'] that it was an STD and then told us, whilst we were busy squandering our research grants down the pub.

 

ha ha..you go DAK!

[Skye]

I just read this article by Robert Matthews, who claims that the AIDS epidemic has peaked

He claims that a UN report says the infection rate is steady.

[ecoli]

He claims that a UN report says the infection rate is steady.

 

Doesn't it depend on what part of the world your looking at?

 

I thought that is was decreasing in developed countries... not sure about places like Africa.

[bascule]

There's been all sorts of promising breakthroughs in AIDS research lately. And saying "never" is completely retarded. What happens when we can create seek-and-destroy nanorobots who can obliterate HIV?

[Skye]

Well the global infection rate is supposedly steady. My point was that this is an infection rate, so the 'epidemic' (pandemic) hasn't necessarily peaked.

[Cloud]

Maybe something which he could be touching on is the fact that billions have been spent. This money could be better used towards all the cancer research instead. Since cancer kills more than AIDS it would be economically wiser. Maybe a 100% cure for cancer could have been found by now if the funding went that way.

[zyncod]

Except that cancer is essentially unstoppable. And far more money is spent on cancer research than AIDS research. At the last immunology and pathogenesis retreat I went on, fully 50% of the projects involved cancer while only a few involved HIV.

[Cloud]

Except that cancer is essentially unstoppable. And far more money is spent on cancer research than AIDS research. At the last immunology and pathogenesis[/u'] retreat I went on, fully 50% of the projects involved cancer while only a few involved HIV.

 

Yes - infact, coincendtly 50% of medical research funding in UK is on cancer whilst I think a mere 8-12% is on HIV/AIDS if I remember correctly.

But the potential oppurtnunity cost of extra funding for cancer would shift the probability in favour of a cure for cancer - more students, more employment in cancer research, more ideas . . .

 

Come to think of it - maybe Harajuku is right in saying that education is something to focus on. After a while and contract after contract, these scientistsworking day after day on a cure could lose interest and genuine creativity and passion in discovering. Maybe this should be replenished in great numbers by producing more science graduates