Post: #1

I had two of my horrible, liberal, NYC friends on Facebook today dissing on Margaret Thatcher because she didn't do enougth for Aids research.

I have heard that same complaint about Ronald Reagan and Ed Koch.

Does anyone really except the Government to protect them from catching an STD? And then EXPECTING the government to fund a cure?

30 years later we still don't have a cure for AIDS, but let's cut the bullshit, when was anal sex ever safe??

I was reading today that some scientists think King Tut might have died from veneral disease, even during 3000BC people understood that putting a raw penis into an anus can make you sick.

It's like the same assholes who claim they didn't know smoking is bad for you.

Veneral diseases have been around FOREVER, from pirates, to the Civil War, to the bible. Butt sex has always been dangerous.

Post: #2

Good points, but you should re-title the post "Was Thatcher responsible for AIDS victims' choices?" because your current title looks like you're making jokes.

Another point is that lots of people have diseases the government doesn't fund. I remember talking to a biologist about Sickle Cell Anemia and him telling me they could find a cure if all the money wasn't going to AIDS. Tell your FB friends that.

Post: #3

AIDS research is soaking up a lot of dollars that could be used to irradiate other diseases. A lot of the researchers in cancer fields jumped on the AIDS research bandwagon because that's where the money was.

Post: #4

one of my virology profs told us that one day a long ass time from now (if there isn't a cure) everyone will probably have HIV/AIDS and it won't even affect us that much (kind of like herpes).

The main goal of a virus is to replicate itself. This means that if the host survives longer the virus will be able to replicate more. Poorly adapted viruses are the ones which kill the host quickly (ie. Ebola) HIV isn't very well adapted to humans either, but he was saying how the average lifespan for someone with HIV is ever increasing. This (along with drugs) is the virus adapting to live in humans. So he thinks that if left long enough It'll be like herpes. You get it, but its dormant for most of its life cycle.

Post: #5

i laughed more than i should have while reading this post.

Post: #6

(04-08-2013 08:18 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  I had two of my horrible, liberal, NYC friends on Facebook today dissing on Margaret Thatcher because she didn't do enougth for Aids research.

Horrible liberal friends? Facebook? NYC? So many avoidable nuisances.

Post: #7

The truth is, AIDS advocates helped propel forward treatment for the disease. If they weren't so well connected, HIV would still be a death sentence.

How much longer would highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) have taken to come to market without AIDS advocacy? Compared to other diseases, the FDA fast-tracked HIV treatment because it was so politically visible.

Post: #8

(04-08-2013 11:32 PM)WesternCancer Wrote:  one of my virology profs told us that one day a long ass time from now (if there isn't a cure) everyone will probably have HIV/AIDS and it won't even affect us that much (kind of like herpes).

The main goal of a virus is to replicate itself. This means that if the host survives longer the virus will be able to replicate more. Poorly adapted viruses are the ones which kill the host quickly (ie. Ebola) HIV isn't very well adapted to humans either, but he was saying how the average lifespan for someone with HIV is ever increasing. This (along with drugs) is the virus adapting to live in humans. So he thinks that if left long enough It'll be like herpes. You get it, but its dormant for most of its life cycle.

This is what happened to syphilis. Initially, syphilis was profoundly deadly and killed people within 2 years of contracting it. Nowadays it's sometimes so mild that people can carry it lifelong without ever becoming sick from it.

Post: #9

(04-09-2013 01:06 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 11:32 PM)WesternCancer Wrote:  one of my virology profs told us that one day a long ass time from now (if there isn't a cure) everyone will probably have HIV/AIDS and it won't even affect us that much (kind of like herpes).

The main goal of a virus is to replicate itself. This means that if the host survives longer the virus will be able to replicate more. Poorly adapted viruses are the ones which kill the host quickly (ie. Ebola) HIV isn't very well adapted to humans either, but he was saying how the average lifespan for someone with HIV is ever increasing. This (along with drugs) is the virus adapting to live in humans. So he thinks that if left long enough It'll be like herpes. You get it, but its dormant for most of its life cycle.

This is what happened to syphilis. Initially, syphilis was profoundly deadly and killed people within 2 years of contracting it. Nowadays it's sometimes so mild that people can carry it lifelong without ever becoming sick from it.

No. That's not what happened with Syphilis. Syphilis is a bacterial infection. HIV is a virus. What happened with Syphilis is that modern antibiotics were developed

Post: #10

A Socialist Guide to HIV: The whole world economy should be based around fixing the problems which we were too liberal to avoid for ourselves.

Post: #11

Not to pile on here, but I think the idea that "everyone will get HIV" is a leftover from the 1980s. Back then, they were issuing fearmongering warnings that it was an "equal opportunity disease" and we were all at risk.

30 year on, what happened? It's a disease that's contracted by the same groups: gays and IV drug users. If there's any issue, it's why the media and surgeon general back then weren't called out on their bullshit. Most people are not at risk and they should be warning straight college students about real problems, like genital warts (ew).

(04-09-2013 04:12 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(04-09-2013 01:06 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 11:32 PM)WesternCancer Wrote:  one of my virology profs told us that one day a long ass time from now (if there isn't a cure) everyone will probably have HIV/AIDS and it won't even affect us that much (kind of like herpes).

The main goal of a virus is to replicate itself. This means that if the host survives longer the virus will be able to replicate more. Poorly adapted viruses are the ones which kill the host quickly (ie. Ebola) HIV isn't very well adapted to humans either, but he was saying how the average lifespan for someone with HIV is ever increasing. This (along with drugs) is the virus adapting to live in humans. So he thinks that if left long enough It'll be like herpes. You get it, but its dormant for most of its life cycle.

This is what happened to syphilis. Initially, syphilis was profoundly deadly and killed people within 2 years of contracting it. Nowadays it's sometimes so mild that people can carry it lifelong without ever becoming sick from it.

No. That's not what happened with Syphilis. Syphilis is a bacterial infection. HIV is a virus. What happened with Syphilis is that modern antibiotics were developed

Post: #12

(04-09-2013 10:31 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Most people are not at risk and they should be warning straight college students about real problems, like genital warts (ew).

Which, incidentally, cannot be stopped completely by condoms yet people are told to wrap it up anyways.

Post: #13

Yeah, I'm afraid I'm not as confident that HIV/Aids will decrease in extent or severity.

Look, I don't have a background in the medical field, so maybe there is a logical answer to this question that I cant think of myself. The question is:

1) If anti-retroviral drugs allow people with HIV to live longer than they otherwise would.....
2) and HIV is a communicable disease spread by the transfer of bodily fluids from one person to another, typically during anal sex, and sometimes other forms of sex....
3) then surely the use of anti-retroviral drugs will ultimately lead to an increase in the incidence of HIV in the population, not a decrease?

The reason: To blunt... Dead men(or women) don't fuck. The longer an infected person lives the more people he/she can potentially infect. Am I missing something here? Obviously I'm not recommending that treatment is stopped. Just making an observation.

Anyway, on the accusation that AIDS is the responsibility if Reagan/Thatcher. Accusations like this is why gay people get a bad rap. It is as obvious as can be that the accusation is forwarded by people to deflect blame for their own, or a chosen victim groups, behavior. The simple biological truth is that anal sex with multiple and/or concurrent partners massively increases ones risk of contracting HIV and other STD's. This isn't a political reality. A religious issue. Or anything similar. It is a brutal, pitiless and indifferent biological reality.

Personally I think the whole "Reagan lied, people died" nonsense is very dangerous talk. In politicising the disease it gives gay people a false sense of security. They could think: "Well, Obama is now in office, not that meanie Reagan, so we have nothing to worry about." And they go off and register on sites like Grindr and whatever gains were made in the aftermath of the 80's devastation are lost. In my opinion apps like Grindr, and the politicisation of AIDS are going to conspire to cause a repeat of the 80's. (No, I neither welcome this, nor hope for its realisation. Hopefully things can turn around. But based on current practice I'm not hopeful)