There is no cure for cancer/AIDS/HIV...or is there?!?!? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-27-2002, 08:24 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Cancer, itself, is difficult, requiring elimination of every last cancerous cell. I'm guessing it comes back, because precancerous cells still exist or the stimulus causing the mutation into cancer is still present. I've also heard that cancer is often caused by a virus (can anyone credible corroborate that?), so, again, the difficulty is in ridding a virus. I have heard, though, that there is a fairly promising technology involving vaccines for certain cancers. Can anyone corroborate that as well?

Dunno about viral cancers. I do know that the primary obstacle to curing cancers is finding treatments that don't also lay waste to healthy cells.
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 07-27-2002, 08:43 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba
So the NRA is suppressing a cure for AIDS because of the jobs that would be lost?

Not just because of the jobs that would be lost, but also because AIDS is a wonderfully effective method of population control in Africa.
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 07-27-2002, 11:52 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
I've also heard that cancer is often caused by a virus (can anyone credible corroborate that?), so, again, the difficulty is in ridding a virus. I have heard, though, that there is a fairly promising technology involving vaccines for certain cancers. Can anyone corroborate that as well?
Certain types of cancers can be brought on by viruses. It is common in things like cervical cancer. I do believe that the term "often" is problematic in your statement, though.

As for promising vaccines, most of the money is being directed at anti-viral drugs (mainly nucleoside analogues) because the mutation times make it difficult for a vaccine to be created, and often there is no animal pool.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-28-2002, 07:37 AM   #19
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:10 AM

Just wanted to add that by cured I meant the patient is freed from it. They go into remission, or declared cancer free from their treatments.

Apologies. My mistake.

*NB: This came from an endocronologist, so context is important here. He may not have been referring to patients worldwide, only Australia and this was 1-2 years ago so this may not be accurate today.
__________________
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 07:31 AM   #20
Refugee
 
Klodomir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,198
Local Time: 02:10 PM
Quote:
by Chad Stafko
"If AIDS, which some estimate affects an upper limit of 900,000 Americans, is truly only a minor cause of death among Americans, then why is such an enormous amount of federal funding allocated to the disease? After all, how much money should it take to tell Americans, and especially children, to not 'sleep around' and engage in homosexual relationships? "
Oh, so once again not being a pervert will save you? Who is this ignorant fuck you're quoting, Lem?
__________________
Klodomir is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 07:44 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite

The Revival Of The AIDS Crisis
By Chad Stafko

"Oftentimes AIDS activists claim that the disease does not discriminate when selecting its victims. This is simply not true. Individuals who are in monogamous sexual relationships and have not engaged in promiscuous sex, have little chance in ever contracting the disease. "

"With the methods of transmission laid out, it becomes quite obvious that AIDS, unlike so many of the diseases that affect millions of Americans, is largely preventable if only individuals would not have multiple sexual partners, either in homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Yet, despite the obvious simplicity in preventing the spread of this disease, our government spends an enormous amount of money on AIDS."

"If AIDS, which some estimate affects an upper limit of 900,000 Americans, is truly only a minor cause of death among Americans, then why is such an enormous amount of federal funding allocated to the disease? After all, how much money should it take to tell Americans, and especially children, to not 'sleep around' and engage in homosexual relationships? "

Dear Lemonite, why do you quote shit like that?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 12:03 PM   #22
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
Dear Lemonite, why do you quote shit like that?
In Lemonite's defense, what the article says does appear to be true. At least in the United States, the transmission of HIV by blood transfusion has almost disappeared; the spread of the disease is now limited to three avenues:

- Sexual intercourse (homosexual AND heterosexual; the article emphasizes the point).

- Shared needles (typically by heroin addicts).

- The transmission from a woman to her child during pregnancy.

The main path of tranmission IS sexual intercourse, that path WOULD BE cut off with sexual prudence, abstinance before a lifelong monogamous relationship. The article is correct in asserting that AIDS "is largely preventable if only individuals would not have multiple sexual partners, either in homosexual or heterosexual relationships."

Finally, given the number of people suffering with the disease and the "free will" nature of its transmission, the effort to combat the disease DOES seem to get a disproportionate amount of federal dollars, probably because of political reasons. The same gay rights organization that insist that AIDS is not a "gay" disease (for the record, they ARE right) are STILL among the loudest voices for funding AIDS projects.

As offensive as you might find that article, nothing you quote was inaccurate.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 03:06 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba


In Lemonite's defense, what the article says does appear to be true. At least in the United States, the transmission of HIV by blood transfusion has almost disappeared; the spread of the disease is now limited to three avenues:

- Sexual intercourse (homosexual AND heterosexual; the article emphasizes the point).

- Shared needles (typically by heroin addicts).

- The transmission from a woman to her child during pregnancy.

The main path of tranmission IS sexual intercourse, that path WOULD BE cut off with sexual prudence, abstinance before a lifelong monogamous relationship. The article is correct in asserting that AIDS "is largely preventable if only individuals would not have multiple sexual partners, either in homosexual or heterosexual relationships."

Finally, given the number of people suffering with the disease and the "free will" nature of its transmission, the effort to combat the disease DOES seem to get a disproportionate amount of federal dollars, probably because of political reasons. The same gay rights organization that insist that AIDS is not a "gay" disease (for the record, they ARE right) are STILL among the loudest voices for funding AIDS projects.

As offensive as you might find that article, nothing you quote was inaccurate.
No, the article is inaccurate. It doesnīt mention the fact that practically ninetynine percent of relationships are not monogamous. Thats the fact and therefore the article is totally useless and the author sucks.

Imagine you have a wife, Bubba. Imagine you are married to her for many years. You are true to each other, but for one reason or the other she has sex with a stranger, just one night. But this stranger didnīt have a relatively monogamous life like her. He had sexual intercourse with many women, one of them positive. He is positive. He gives it to your wife, she gives it to you. Just one example, excuse me to stress your patience with personal examples.

Now you want to say "well but then in the end it was not monogamous"... but who can guarantee you to be true for all her life? No one, Bubba. Neither you can guarantee that. There is no guarantee. There is just the will. The strong will maybe, sure. But zero of guarantee.

Another example... imagine you have had a happy juvenile life, say you had about ten girls with who you were having sexual intercourse. Now you meet your first real partner. You donīt know it, but you are already infected. Three years after you married her, she gets ill. And it was a perfect monogamous relationship, right? But you didnīt make a test. Yes, its a cruel disease. Not early enough? Welcome to the club.

I donīt care if the author of this article throws in a few "liberal goodies" (sorry liberals), like "Oh we all know that it is not only about homosexuality, so lets repeat it again, it can also happen to heterosexuals". But come on, everyone knows that, this point doesnīt have to be emphasized (or maybe also - for the bulls and the cows).

It is true that this disease does not discriminate when its searching its victims (puh, how can a disease discriminate? - typical shit journalist style).

Then, the author also seems to be the opinion that the money would be better spent for doing a big media campaign, maybe to tell the people "Donīt fuck around". Sure, this will have a great effect. Ridiculous.

"And how much should it cost to tell especially children not to sleep around?" (well how much does one ad, double site, in your magazine cost, dear Mr. Journalist?). Sentences like that make me vomit, like a bag full of shit. First, children donīt "sleep around". Children are sexually abused, and mainly not by other children, but by guys like this motherfucker. Juveniles have sex, maybe, idiot. But since when do they "sleep around" more than adults?

Go get a life, man. I am confident enough - without backing up with data - that most of the Americans have sex not only for the reason of getting a child, and more than two times per life, and more than one partner per life. This wonīt change, even if you have the biggest media campagne this world has ever seen. This means that the number of new infections can only be reduced if we all use condoms. Not if we would all live monogamous - which most of us will never do, anyway.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 03:18 PM   #24
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 01:10 PM
Dude... you're ignoring what is absolute fact. The AIDS virus spreads through sex with multiple people. If you want to stop the spread of AIDS, for sure, that is THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT. I know it sucks, because you don't get to have sex with anyone you want to. But it's the only way to guarantee that the spread stops.

I am not at all at risk of contracting Aids. You know why? Because I haven't had sex. Having sex with only one partner in your life is a sure fire way to avoid AIDS (providing your partner did as well). Granted, with this model, there would be much less sex happening... as if we'd gone back to before the so-called "sexual revolution"... but you have to remember that before the "sexual revolution" the spread of STD's was not a tenth of what it is today. Now we have more sex, and now we have more sick.
__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 03:42 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by KingPin
Dude... you're ignoring what is absolute fact. The AIDS virus spreads through sex with multiple people. If you want to stop the spread of AIDS, for sure, that is THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT. I know it sucks, because you don't get to have sex with anyone you want to. But it's the only way to guarantee that the spread stops.

I am not at all at risk of contracting Aids. You know why? Because I haven't had sex. Having sex with only one partner in your life is a sure fire way to avoid AIDS (providing your partner did as well). Granted, with this model, there would be much less sex happening... as if we'd gone back to before the so-called "sexual revolution"... but you have to remember that before the "sexual revolution" the spread of STD's was not a tenth of what it is today. Now we have more sex, and now we have more sick.
Well sorry there Dude but you are ignoring what is absolute fact.
There are things called CONDOMS. Ok, we all hate them. But they do protect. If you didnīt have any sex until now, I can understand that you donīt know that...
come back in a few years.

Great to hear you will have sex with only one partner. Have fun.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 04:01 PM   #26
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


Well sorry there Dude but you are ignoring what is absolute fact.
There are things called CONDOMS. Ok, we all hate them. But they do protect. If you didnīt have any sex until now, I can understand that you donīt know that...
come back in a few years.

Great to hear you will have sex with only one partner. Have fun.
Now now now... let's not be snarky.

I'm fully aware of condoms, smartass. And I understand that without having had sex. They DO NOT protect against STDs 100% of the time... not even close. That is a fact. Condoms are not more safe than not screwing a load of different people. Get real.

I appreciate the way you tried to discredit my point by making fun of me... childish, but it reveals a alot.

Yeah, I'll have fun... a whole lot of fun, in fact... And you have fun putting yourself at risk for contracting a life-ending disease. Or a painful STD that lasts your whole life.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have sex. Not at all. Go mad, have a great time. But don't tell me that somehow I'm the delusional one for knowing that you're putting yourself and your health at risk.
__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 05:03 PM   #27
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Wow, KingPin, you and I agree... Are you sure you're not someone else?

Obviously, I disagree with hiphop:

Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
No, the article is inaccurate. It doesnīt mention the fact that practically ninetynine percent of relationships are not monogamous. Thats the fact and therefore the article is totally useless and the author sucks.
The article's assertion is that lifelong monagamy between two disease-free people (gay or straight) will prevent both from becoming infected with HIV (excluding IV drug use or the almost non-existent transfusion of infected blood).

This IS accurate, regardless of how few people actually practice monogamy. At most, that stastic means that the article's assertion is incomplete, not inaccurate. Perhaps it means that lifelong monogamy OUGHT to be further encouraged, that we should turn away from this idea that sexual liberation somehow leads to spiritual liberation (see "Pleasantville" for a good example of the insidious suggestion).

The article is NOT useless - particularly to those practicing lifelong monogamy and those encouraging the practice in others.

And, well, the author doesn't suck.

You're absolutely right that lifelong monogamy may be a very difficult thing to achieve, but many priests practice lifelong celibacy: if a life without sex is possible, surely it's reasonable to expect a life with just one sexual partner, a husband or wife whom you love more than yourself, a soulmate.

Short of that, some sense of social responsibility is a good thing: if not monagamy, then the use of condoms and regular testing is the least you can do.

But, speaking as a Christian, I believe God intended sex within marriage, lifelong heterosexual monogamy sealed by a binding oath before God and the rest of the world - two becoming one flesh, the one remaining under God's provision.

I close with a slight disagreement with KingPin:

Quote:
Originally posted by KingPin
Granted, with this model, there would be much less sex happening...
Not necessarily: it seems possible that a husband and wife could have more sex. One can hope.

Either way, I'd prefer quality over quantity. I believe - and my heart confirms this - that sex under the institution of marriage with the woman I love (my girlfriend of two years) would be far better than sex under any other circumstances. Beyond the physical enjoyment, there would be a real union of minds, hearts, EVEN souls - all with the blessing of God Almighty.

I believe God objects to sex outside of marriage, but He doesn't merely allow it within marriage: He encourages is, almost saying, "Go ahead, kids, have fun." He created the act, and all its pleasures, for that very purpose.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 05:15 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by KingPin


Now now now... let's not be snarky.

I'm fully aware of condoms, smartass. And I understand that without having had sex. They DO NOT protect against STDs 100% of the time... not even close. That is a fact. Condoms are not more safe than not screwing a load of different people. Get real.

I appreciate the way you tried to discredit my point by making fun of me... childish, but it reveals a alot.

Yeah, I'll have fun... a whole lot of fun, in fact... And you have fun putting yourself at risk for contracting a life-ending disease. Or a painful STD that lasts your whole life.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have sex. Not at all. Go mad, have a great time. But don't tell me that somehow I'm the delusional one for knowing that you're putting yourself and your health at risk.
Oh come on Kingpin, donīt take me that serious. I would never joke anybody about sexuality, ok I just wanted to say "you oughta know that" then it occured to me that you canīt, youīre not my wife.

It is true that I am at risk, yes. And if you really can have sex with only one partner, in all your life, congratulations, seriously. Couldnīt absolutely be my kind of life (for them girls: yes I can be true, I have been true for years and years, so donīt interprete).

Apart from our private lives: condoms are pretty safe. Not one hundred percent, but donīt they reach something like this so called factor of 97 percent? You are protecting yourself against HIV if you use them. KingPin, go to ask any AIDS/ HIV test center in the world.

Or lets make a virtual bet. Say you have 1,000 pairs of partners who say and feel they will be true to each other for all their life and donīt use any protection, no one infected. Plus, take 1,000 pairs who will always use condoms, include the fact that 3 percent of them break or whatever, and also in this group, no one infected. Go there after 20 years, and see what you will find. I am very sure that more than 30 of the 1,000 first pairs will tell you they have been untrue, at least once in their life.

Sorry if you took it snarky, Kingpin, this was absolutely not my intention. I was answering this style because you started with "Dude", so I thought you would take it more like joking around.
No offense there. Okey, Dude?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 05:23 PM   #29
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


Oh come on Kingpin, donīt take me that serious. I would never joke anybody about sexuality, ok I just wanted to say "you oughta know that" then it occured to me that you canīt, youīre not my wife.

It is true that I am at risk, yes. And if you really can have sex with only one partner, in all your life, congratulations, seriously. Couldnīt absolutely be my kind of life (for them girls: yes I can be true, I have been true for years and years, so donīt interprete).

Apart from our private lives: condoms are pretty safe. Not one hundred percent, but donīt they reach something like this so called factor of 97 percent? You are protecting yourself against HIV if you use them. KingPin, go to ask any AIDS/ HIV test center in the world.

Or lets make a virtual bet. Say you have 1,000 pairs of partners who say and feel they will be true to each other for all their life and donīt use any protection, no one infected. Plus, take 1,000 pairs who will always use condoms, include the fact that 3 percent of them break or whatever, and also in this group, no one infected. Go there after 20 years, and see what you will find. I am very sure that more than 30 of the 1,000 first pairs will tell you they have been untrue, at least once in their life.

Sorry if you took it snarky, Kingpin, this was absolutely not my intention. I was answering this style because you started with "Dude", so I thought you would take it more like joking around.
No offense there. Okey, Dude?
Totally man... my bad. Dude.

Excuse me if I'm a bit sensitive on the issue of sex... trust me.. I'm NOT having a good time doing this no-sex thing. it's immensely frustrating for anyone who is trying to do it. It's even more frustrating when people assume cause you choose not to, means you're completely naive on the topic. I certainly like the idea of being with one girl... hoepfully I can live up to the ideal.

And I don't mean to imply everyone should stop having sex. I just think the author has a point in that this disease which is so deadly and feared is actually easily stopped... anybody can ensure they don't receive it. Where as something like Cancer strikes without warning or foreknowledge (except skin cancer and excessive sun exposure, etc.) So should those diseases take precedent, perhaps?

You're right, condom use is a BIG step in preventing the spread of HIV. 97% is still good odds, absolutely. I just find it odd when people act like Abstinence is outrageous... when in fact it's the only sure way.

Once again, sorry for the overreaction.

I look forward to discussing with you and against you!
__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 05:26 PM   #30
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba
Wow, KingPin, you and I agree... Are you sure you're not someone else?


I close with a slight disagreement with KingPin:

Not necessarily: it seems possible that a husband and wife could have more sex. One can hope.
It isn't the first time, actually. I'd be willing to guess that we'd probably agree wholeheartedly on the majority of topics, with the exception being the US Government and maybe the role of Christianity in Politics. But, as they say, if we were all alike, some of us would be unnecessary.

I agree with your point. By "less sex" I meant less sexual partners... less sex with a variety of people. Or even, if I get married at 35 and start having sex then, no matter how much I try, it'll be hard to have as much in my lifetime as someone who's been going since 17!
__________________

__________________
KingPin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ÂĐ Interference.com