Silkroad Online Forums

The countries where the virus has hit the hardest suffer from a high mortality rate, high rate of child birth deaths, and a lower life span than average. Curing those people would merely help those countries bring their population back up to a standard level. Saying that the virus shouldn't be cured because it would do this is basically like saying we shouldn't have hospitals because they keep people from dying and thus contribute to over population.

If you are so concerned about over population then maybe we should make laws in the US to limit the number of children we have. We should also lower the amount of food available. Get rid of homeless shelters. There are a number of things we can do in this country to lower or help curb the threat of over population. But i never see you suggesting these ideas before. Instead you are suggesting that we refuse to cure about 33 Million people of which only about 1% live in the US anyway and most of which reside in third world countries. 33 mil is about .0055% of the worlds population. You would be curing .0055% most of which reside in third world countries whose people suffer from high death rate, lower lifespan, high child birth rate, stagnant economies, and poverty. And you are going to tell me that curing .0055% of the worlds population who live under those circumstances will contribute to over population? There are a ton of more effective ways to curb over population, i don't see how curing .0055 of the population who will still be living under these circumstances is detrimental to the cause. Those people will still be living in conditions that breed death, it would be more effect to kill 33 million americans who have healthcare and like to pop out babies living in conditions with support the growth of life.

You are not "taking a chance" If you consider curing these people "taking a chance" then you should support the other things i suggested because those are guaranteed to put a damper on population growth. Your argument sounds like it makes sense but only to people who don't know what they're talking about. A virus came along and added insult to injury devastating these peoples populations. Now a cure comes along to undue the damage that was done and you're saying its bad because people might live? Your argument holds no real world standings. It sounds like the argument of someone who lives thousands of miles from the problem and will never experience anything like it in their life. It is hypocrisy at its finest. While you live and breath you contribute to your own problem and yet you say its ok to let those people die. Do us all a favor and kill yourself, help lower the population and the level of stupid in the world.

Aren't there different kinds of aids though? The reason people with aids avoid having sex with other people with aids.. since every other kind needs a different medicine etc etc and some medicine are counteractive

Will one vaccine neutralize all the different kinds of aids?

(uninformed)

Aids is aids, people just react different.

I hope this HIV Vaccine works. I can't argue anymore. qft...

Jerk status = Told.

That's too bad, because I'd like to see more about why you believe people WITHOUT the virus are going to be more affected by the vaccine.

Thats nice. I doubt it will work on the first try though.

I love how we are taking the steps to a cure for HIV, but the real fight is cancer IMO. Approximately 3.3 Million die each year from HIV, but 7.6 Million die of cancer. Which is the greater evil?

Don't read if you can't take a joke:

God's a noob.



Who are the primary recipients of vaccines?

I think Realest is referring to overpopulation.

Now let me put this in simple terms for all you overpopulation freaks:

1) 3.3 million people a year will barely make a dent in our 6 billion people population. Especially given the fact that as sexually active humans we are constantly reproducing.

2)The worst cases of HIV infection are in RURAL regions. Such as the Sahel regions of Africa, and the forest of sub Sahara Africa. take your overpopulation shit to Southeast Asia, The Indian Subcontinent, Western Europe, and Northeast USA.

3)Where is your compassion? Millions of people should suffer so YOU can live a good life, and note the earth can still support us, it hasn't gotten to point where it's cataclysmic hell on earth billions of people starving yet.

NEVER!

Cut the crap about overpopulation. You're a consumer living in a consumer market, who the hell are you to say that it's okay for others to die for your own selfish reason? Unless the overpopulation in your area is so bad that your neighbor has to sleep on the same bed as you, I really don't see the point in bringing up the "issue of overpopulation." It's a part of natural selection but so are other causes of death such as accidents and heart attacks - which we are all trying to avoid as much as possible.

Cancer is an entirely different 'kind' of disease. There is no virus, no bacteria and no fungii involved with getting it. Just plain old mutation of body tissue. Cancer will never be wiped out as it is 'natural'. We can only find better ways to combat it once people have it (increase rate of survival) and better ways to detect it earlier.

Can you get cancer from a Virus? Yes you can (see Human Papilloma Virus).

If it actually worked think of the ammount of people who would get aids just to loose a quick 90 pounds...

You can do both you know....

So basically whe should just let 3.3 million people die. Whilst we have plenty of scientists working on both.

Ok.

You didn't understand what I was trying to say and I'm not even going to bother explaining myself.

I took your reply literally, if you mean something else, then be sure to write that down next time.

There is no greater evil, regardless of number of deaths. There are just two evils.