HIV / AIDS: Will there ever be a cure?

Do you think they'll ever be a cure for HIV / AIDS? Some speculate that there exists a cure or that one can be made, but that the government and the pharmaceutical companies are intentionally preventing such a cure from being made or released to the market, because healthcare in regard to HIV/ AIDS is so lucrative. What do you think?

Also, do you or have you ever personally known anyone with the disease? How did they or how are they fairing with it? Finally, how would you react if you found out you caught it (hopefully that NEVER happens).

"Hey man, you weren't at work yesterday, what's up?"

"Man my AIDS was acting up. You know when the weather gets like this my AIDS just pop up. But I took some Robitussin, I'm fine now."

I sure hope not

You hope that there won't be a cure for HIV/ AIDS? Why? I think a cure would be great. People could rawdog and not worry about it.

See, here's the problem with that argument. If you're in the business of selling "treatment" for a disease (rather than a cure), and if you believe that it's possible to make a cure, then it's in your best f***ing interest to make a cure yourself. Why? Because if there's a cure, then you bet your f***ing ass that your competitors are looking for it. If they find it and patent it before you do, then you're f***ed. Now why would anyone come to you for "treatment" when your competitor can actually CURE THEM?

The theory is that all of the companies in the pharmaceutical industry are working together to prevent a cure from being made or released.

lol

@BluRayHiDef: Yeah eventually. Hell not too long ago I remember reading about a potential vaccine that is being tested.

It's a virus - so no.

I wouldn't go that far, but drug patenting is pretty upsetting.

If a cure is released, people are going to be rawdogging like crazy. "Hey, I remember that night I rawdogged Katie. You know, she gave me HIV, but it's no big deal because I got cured last week."

Well, how about a vaccine?

Eventually I think there will be, I have faith in what science can do..

Yep, since HIV/AIDS is the only thing to be concerned about with unprotected sex.

lol

@worlock77: Obviously, I was exagerrating. My point is that people won't be as fearful in regard to contracting it; it would be seen as no more serious than current STDs that can be cured merely with antibiotics. As for pregnancy, a lot of people rely on the pull-out method.

which is not a reliable way of not getting pregnant. and not all STDs can be cured with antibiotics

Not all STDs can be cured with antibiotics and people who rely on the pull-out method are just asking to get pregnant.

There've been some amazing scientific advancements in recent years that give me some hope to it being cured.

I thought bone marrow got rid of it?

I could see a way to completely stop it from spreading or at least reducing the chance of spreading to minuscule values, but a actual cure won't be made for quite some time.

While it sounds terrible, people with HIV/AIDS will eventually die out, but there will always be a few idiots that don't give two flying shits about anyone else.

There are plenty of lifesaving drugs out there already but these deplorable pharma patents make it impossible for everyone to have access to it. It's also the reason why millions die in the third world from it, because the US and pharma continue to refuse life saving drugs to developing nations.

There's a documentary out called "Fire in the Blood" which documents this scandalous operation.

http://fireintheblood.com/

@RAGEofSTUNTS: Actually, if a woman has hiv/aids, and gives birth without the right medical procedures taken...

The child can end up with hiv/aids.

Africa :(

Find the people with AIDS. Don't let them have unprotected sex. Cured. Stop spunking money up the wall on scientific methods.

Two problems with that

1) Not everyone who's infected know they're infected

2) That's completely unethical

And how would you do that?

Even if that was true, they would still develop it in secret and then back stab the other companies to get away with all the money. This is economics 101.

Sure, when they can figure out a way to charge people up the ass with it...

Yeah. I think anti-retrovirals, in addition to keeping the mother alive, can reduce the possibility of HIV being transferred to the child. the anti-retroviral prevents the HIV viruses (which are retroviruses) from reproducing their genes by blocking the enzyme reverse transcriptase which retroviruses use in the process called reverse transcription (synthesizing RNA from DNA). By preventing the HIV virus from reproducing this keeps the number of viruses in the host from growing, making it less likely to spread to the child.

bone marrow transplant. but it's risky

I think it's also only helped get rid of HIV in a few cases, I could be wrong though. From what I remember of the news reports, doctors don't recommend getting the transplant if someone has HIV for the sake of curing the HIV, they only recommend the transplant if someone needs the transplant to treat those things that are normally treated by the bone marrow transplant (which I think would be leukemia and other blood issues).

yeah, it was in patients who had previously had chemotherapy to treat cancer.

I think there is some work on a possible vaccine. I've also heard a few years ago about a gel they came out with that reduces the chances of the virus spreading from one person to another.

There were some recent, separate, stories about a newborn and an adult who both were infected with HIV and were eventually "cured" of it. The infant is HIV free now, but I think subsequent tests have found that the adult still has HIV present in his rectal tissue, but since it's not in his blood stream it wouldn't effect his health unless the HIV from his rectum was able to get into the blood stream if he were to suffer rectal bleeding.

That makes sense. The patients had Leukemia right? Leukemia is basically a blood cancer. I wonder if the chemo might've helped weaken the HIV particles? Chemotherapy works by killing reproducing cells (cancer cells often reproduce rapidly) which is also why it has a lot of side effects, so perhaps it may also stop viruses from reproducing (though maybe it doesn't. I don't know. Since a virus is not really a cell).

naw, 2/3 or black fathers already ditch their kids.

That would only make it worse if they were using less protection.

I think the first guy had a bone marrow transplant with cells that are resistant to HIV infection. And then the other two patients were taking anti-HIV medication still when they had the transplant, and they think that helped prevent the new cells from being infected possibly. I don't think they really no exactly why it works yet, and the operation has only been done on like 3 patients

Government researches will likely find a cure, but because there is such an anti-government sentiment in the US, many will refuse to take the cure for fear of being brainwashed. The rest of the world will take the cure and rejoice, and we'll be dealing with it for another century.

I don't think it is really that big an issue.

Of course I'm exaggerating a little, but just look at the reaction in the thread about the FDA trying to ban trans fats. People rebel against the government even if the government is trying to protect it's citizens.

That really depends on the person. The pull-out method is pretty effective if you don't ejaculate prematurely.

There is probably already a cure. It's just not being released because of all the billions of dollars that goes into it.

Well the cure would probably end up being provided by a private company. But it would also require there to be a significant overlap between those with HIV/AIDS and those that are antigovernment/antivaccine/etc.

um what?

Well, it is only just a theory. You would think after decades of research and financial assistance there would be a cure by now.
No more HIV = no more money to be made of it

There are people out there who claim that Magic Johnson was cured of HIV in secret and you can get cured if you have enough money. Of course, that is just a conspiracy theory and they aren't factoring in the fact that Johnson has the money to get treatment that prevented his condition from killing him like somebody who isn't rich.

That's a terrible theory, just because we have been researching it for decades does not mean it should have a cure; AIDS is a very complicated disease and HIV is prone to mutation. And your original statement needs to be reworded, it makes it sound like the cure isn't being released because they invested billions of dollars.

The problem with HIV is that it is a constantly mutating virus. Even if they were to find a cure for it, there's no guarantee that it would work on everyone infected with it or that it won't be rendered ineffective after a few years. It's the same reason why you see people having to take flu shots every year. Not to say that a cure can't eventually happen (or at the very least, treatment options that are much cheaper and more effective), but it's a way bigger endeavor than it seems, and honestly not surprising that it's already taken billions of dollars in research to get there.

Potentially stupid question: Why can't vaccines be released for new strains every year or so, such as what is done with the flu?

costly, they would have to first find a vaccine, there's not an HIV season like there is a flu season to prepare for

People who insist that the government/hospitals/pharmacuetical companies are holding back a cure for AIDS make me weep. What's next, the government created AIDS to wipe out Africans? ****.