Scientists See AIDS Vaccine Within Reach: Will We See a Cure for AIDS in the 21st Century?

by Heisenberg Posted 2012/07/16 16:00:00

Related Topics: AIDS, Health, Chicago, Scientists, Human, Vaccine, 2012, Cure, Years, Year

332 votes
Read all 233 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	216 votes	65%
	No	116 votes	35%

After decades of working on it, some scientists say they see an AIDS vaccine within reach. Do you believe it?
REUTERS.COM reports:
At an ill-fated press conference in 1984, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler boldly predicted an effective AIDS vaccine would be available within just two years.

services secretary margaret heckler boldly predicted effective aids vaccine years

+24

Add a comment above

Nimitz 2012/07/15 22:47:46

No

+14
Probably not. The cynic in me understands that there's more money in treatments than cures. There hasn't been a bonafide cure for a disease in well over sixty years. 'Strangely' that was at just about the same time as big pharma came onto the world scene.
>> See Replies

More polls by Heisenberg

Richard Hungwell AKA Relent... 2012/07/17 16:38:55

No

+1
No, much like cancer, treating aids is to profitable to allow for a cure.

reply
right-choice 2012/07/17 15:51:31 (edited)

Yes

+1
We already have the cure for AIDs , it been out for over a year.
It's all about getting more Money not about giving the cure.

reply
Christopher Kirchen 2012/07/17 15:28:35

No

Not unless they come up with a broad-spectrum antiviral.

reply
william keegan 2012/07/17 14:45:37

No

+3
Big Pharma learned its lesson in the 1950's with Polio! Drs. Saulk and Sabin discovered a vaccine that actually cured Polio. The vaccine was mass produced and distributed around the world and Polio was virtually eliminated from the face of the earth. Big Pharma could no longer make millions selling anti Polio drugs. Since that incident no cure for any disease has been produced, period!!! Big Pharma spends millions on producing drugs that control symptoms only, there is no cure being sought or produced. When someone does find a cure for cancer or heart disease or other malady Big Pharma will go to the ends of the earth to quash the distribution and even the knowledge about such cure. The absolute last thing Big Pharma wants is a cure for anything, a cure will cut into their profits and they cannot stand still for that!

reply
mobilsq 2012/07/17 14:27:52 (edited)

No

+1
Vaccines are scams for the most part. In fact an early aids vaccine they tested a few years ago, increased your chances of actually contracting the virus.

http://www.cogforlife.org/aid...

reply
Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA 2012/07/17 13:05:43

No

+2
Here are the facts:

Sexually transmitted AIDS is 100% preventable.

When homosexuality was illegal we did not have AIDS in this country.

reply
Inquisi... to Torchma... 2012/07/18 00:08:13 (edited)

+2
But you still had tons of gay sex, so, what's your point?

I have no words for how unbelievably stupid your statement was... do you mean to tell me you're so foolishly ignorant that you actually still believe AIDS is a gay disease?

reply
Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/07/17 12:01:25

No

+2
When was the last time a cure for ANYTHING was found and released? Polio. And do you know what the establishment basically had to say about it, and the billions of dollars and millions of jobs lost over that cure was? NEVER AGAIN! And thus, you see, we haven't 'found' a cure for anything since. Just a bunch of money-mongering spin!

reply
simplex5 2012/07/17 11:49:39

Yes

They created it in a Lab..So they should have a cure for it...Vitamin defiencey......

reply
Pam 2012/07/17 10:55:58 (edited)

No

I think we have vaccines for many of the diseases that are out there. If they treated people with these vaccines many people would be out of business! As sick as it may seem it wouldn't be profitable for the drug companies and the government! The drug companies are very powerful!

reply
Rie~ 2012/07/17 09:23:53

Yes

as there is one for cancer...but they wont sell it :) because it will be too cheap..or they will sell it at really high prices..

reply
OnyxRaven 2012/07/17 09:03:48 (edited)

Yes

Actually there most likely is a cure for AIDS, but the process of proving its effect, testing it and then finally distributing it will take a very long time. Here's hoping they invent a time machine by the time they release the cure - so many amazing people have died from AIDS.

reply
mandyinabox 2012/07/17 08:50:13

Yes

i have hope, though there are some risks to the progress of developing this medication D:...

(The Food Revolution, John Robbins, page 255)

reply
beach bum 2012/07/17 07:39:51

Yes

yes

reply
TheCouchF*cker 2012/07/17 07:17:37

Yes

It's a fair guess, at least.

reply
The Mosher 2012/07/17 06:45:58

Yes

if other corporations don't try to slow or stop it

reply
USAF Vet 2012/07/17 06:27:04

No

+1
The HIV virus is a retrovirus...smarter than the average liberal.

reply
☆ElenaDiamond☆ 2012/07/17 04:28:45

Yes

+1
I think a vaccine is likely. I am glad, it would be nice for people to have one less thing to worry about. However there is still herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis, HPV and the rest.

Just one more reason why promiscuity comes with its own punishment.

reply
Katherine 2012/07/17 04:21:00

Yes

Depending on what you mean by "we," "will see" and "a cure."

reply
imantrek 2012/07/17 03:47:10

No

+1
Don't you love how they create all these diseases, then rush in like the calvary with supposed cure? Meanwhile the pharmacutical companies make millions from the hype. Talk bout promoting commercial entities Sodahead..

reply
Black-Indian Girl 2012/07/17 03:40:06

Yes

I hope so. However, I'll hold off my judgement until they make more breakthroughs. There are a plethora of reasons the HiV vaccine is not yet within our grasp. A big problem is HIV is highly mutable. Because of the virus' ability to rapidly respond to selective pressures imposed by the immune system, the population of virus in an infected individual typically evolves so that it can evade the two major arms of the adaptive immune system; humoral (antibody-mediated) and cellular (mediated by T cells) immunity.

reply
tom to Black-I... 2012/07/18 00:33:04

What a bunch of crap.

reply
Apache 2012/07/17 03:39:52

No

+1
Always remember to use safe sex.

reply
Magical Mushroom 2012/07/17 03:05:24

No

Unless you want to be pumped full of a soft kill vaccine.

reply
mikeeonly 2012/07/17 02:22:00

Yes

Hopefully yes, it is no longer a death sentence.

reply
CAPISCE 2012/07/17 02:04:48

Yes

+2
There is already a cure---don't shoot drugs or have homo sex. That takes care of 90% of the cases

reply
Artisan... to CAPISCE 2012/07/17 02:10:27

+3
That's not a cure, that's being smart and preventing it from happening.

reply
Artisan... to CAPISCE 2012/07/17 02:11:18

+1
and it's not just homo sex. have unprotected sex with a woman who has HIV/AIDS and you'll get it too

reply
CAPISCE to Artisan... 2012/07/17 02:13:16

Did you notice there are no vampires in San Fransisco

reply
art1ej to CAPISCE 2012/07/17 09:52:43

Women have the highest rate of hiv/aids in all most every country so its not "homo sex"....everyone male & female need to practice safe sex....

reply
Magnus ... to art1ej 2012/07/17 12:08:56

+1
That is true, and I'll hasten to add the reason why. When it wasn't discovered but existed, it was all of the closeted gay men out there who were married or had girlfriends for appearance's sake, who screwed all of these other gay men (promiscuity was rampant in the gay 'community' in those days, even more than today for both gay and straight because of the closeted factor and the fear, meaning very few gays were monogamous - just random screws) and then going back home to their wife or girlfriend (a fair few of whom then went on to screw their boyfriends and such) and volla, the pandemic was born.

So in fact, YES IT WAS, "homo sex"! Patient zero was also... HOMOSEXUAL!

reply
art1ej to Magnus ... 2012/07/18 12:39:06

It wasnt just gay people who started it,because large numbers of men (straight & gay) got it that it was portrayed as a gay disease.....

reply
CAPISCE to art1ej 2012/07/17 13:05:17 (edited)

+2
Wow are you off base! or you are misinformed. CDC reports In the USA for example in 2010
Homosexual contact --27,800
IV drug use in males-2,652 IV drug use in Females --1,515
Hetrosexual contact male--4,251 Female-7,706
Other--29
According to CDC 73% of Aides cases are Male
Don't be politicall correct be honest.

reply
CAPISCE to art1ej 2012/07/18 01:14:03

Absoluty not true. Go to the CDC website, not that facts will matter to you.

reply
art1ej to CAPISCE 2012/07/18 12:37:25

I went to cdc & thats where i got my facts from,since 2009 its more women by almost half the rate of man getting it.....

reply
CAPISCE to art1ej 2012/07/18 14:56:20

You can't read can you? The women were infected by BISEXUAL males. According to the CDC 88% of all new cases are linked to Homosexual males

reply
art1ej to CAPISCE 2012/07/19 07:16:38

its not 88% im sure i read it months ago so i could be wrong but what i read was 53% straight people to 47% gay people with straight women with over 30% are infected over 15% male.....

reply
CAPISCE to art1ej 2012/07/19 11:44:21 (edited)

+1
Dude, how did the straight women get aides? Bisexual men!

reply
art1ej to CAPISCE 2012/07/20 18:37:52

straight men as well...if you think only way woman can get aids/hiv is because the guy is bisexual you are mistaken & ignorant....btw no one has to give their orientation when they find out so the results are not 100% anyway.....

reply
Cyan9 to CAPISCE 2012/07/17 17:25:39

Are you still stuck in the early 80s? I think you mean anal sex not "homo sex" and shooting up drugs doesn't cause one to contract HIV. HIV is contracted through blood contact. Sharing needles and having anal sex(something both straight, bi and gay men have done throughout human history) often brings one into contact with other people's blood. So it's absurd to say certain habits cause aids. It doesn't.

reply