Slashdot Mirror


AIDS Vaccine Breakthrough

Doc Ruby writes "Scientists at Johns Hopkins University in MD, USA announced they've disrupted the means by which HIV stops the immune system from attacking it. From the article: 'Scientists say they have found a way to disarm the AIDS virus in research that could lead to a vaccine. Researchers have discovered that if they eliminate a cholesterol membrane surrounding the virus, HIV cannot disrupt communication among disease-fighting cells and the immune system returns to normal. [...] "By stealing cholesterol from the envelope of the virus, we can neutralize the subversion," said Graham. "We've broken the code; we can shut down the type of interference that HIV is having on the immune system."'"

417 comments

  1. The future is here at last by RenHoek · · Score: 2, Funny

    With the recent deluge of articles on curing aids, cancer and even the common cold, is the future finally here? Are we going Deus Ex in a few years now?

    1. Re:The future is here at last by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      We can only hope, but I want the chin augment that Jensen has.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    2. Re:The future is here at last by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have a terrible feeling that in the future we'll be seeing cyborg homeopaths and astrologers traveling in flying cars with little fish decals proudly displayed on the back.

    3. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Settle down. The Matrix will reboot in a few minutes. People are getting way too happy for this simulation to continue.

    4. Re:The future is here at last by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am not sure about the recent part, there have always been miracle cancer cures just around the corner for as long as I have been old enough to read the news.
      This is promising, but wake me up when they actually cure/prevent the disease in a person with this.

      And what does curing diseases have to do with cyborg augmentations?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:The future is here at last by backslashdot · · Score: 2

      Actually HIV may really be on its way out ..modern treatments are to the point where you can live a normal healthy life and die of something else. Well as long as you maintain your health insurance anyway.

      HIV will probably be cured over the next decade .. it will not be a single breakthrough though it will be gradual so it won't seem like you woke up one day and HIV is cured .. it'll be like 15 to 20 years from now while sitting on your couch you'll suddenly wonder "whatever happened to that disease everyone was afraid of, HIV?"

    6. Re:The future is here at last by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Which puts us like 20 years behind. HIV was a really stupid epidemic. Early on folks getting infected was going to happen, but when it became known that it was an STI and that not having sex with HIV infected partners would stop the spread, it became really stupid for people to contract it on the scale that they did.

    7. Re:The future is here at last by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, because that knowledge was so effective in nearly eradicating chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, trichomoniasis....

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    8. Re:The future is here at last by Stormthirst · · Score: 2

      That and using other people's needles for injecting drugs. It's just plain dumb. Might even say it's evolution in action.

    9. Re:The future is here at last by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fun fact: that was largely because at first it spread amongst gay men quicker then heterosexuals, and the prevailing attitude was "great, this will finally get rid of the gays!"

      Thus governments assumed they didn't need any sort of public education campaigns about it.

      Then at some point, once someone realized straight people also have promiscuous sex (and there are tons more of them so it didn't seem like an epidemic till much later) did we decide to do anything about it.

    10. Re:The future is here at last by MBGMorden · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is promising, but wake me up when they actually cure/prevent the disease in a person with this.

      My thoughts exactly. I don't demean their research, but realistically I'm not that interested in a play-by-play for the development. I'll consider all this a breakthrough when I can go down to Walgreens and get an AIDS vaccine.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    11. Re:The future is here at last by CrazyDuke · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It is simpler than that. Most people want leaders that act as a substitute for their own super-egos, which lead them personally. Leaders that take and do what they want, largely ignore the desires of those they lead, have petty spiteful fights with each other, smack them for back-talk, and generally treat their followers as being innately ignorant, immature, and inferior are exactly what they want. ...and, exactly what they get.

      FYI: The super-ego is the part of your mind that criticizes you whenever you do something wrong, and is essentially a warped version of the most dominant parental influence from your childhood.

      This reminds me of a couple of stereotypical situations that pop up fairly often: Women that demand that potential mates be their friends first, then wonder why their male friends keep "betraying" them by actually wanting to be mates. Or, for that matter, men that denigrate women that actually enjoy sexual relationships as being sluts and whores, even if they are monogamous and would not sell. Then, they wonder why they end up with virulently avoidant cold fish that clam up the second they get a ring or a kid.

      Basically, be careful what you wish for: The human mind is very poor at sorting out conflicting fears and desires.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    12. Re:The future is here at last by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Because when we are done curing disease, the next step is augmentations :)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    13. Re:The future is here at last by Bengie · · Score: 1

      The difference is now there are a bunch of cancer cures on human testing.

    14. Re:The future is here at last by ultranova · · Score: 1

      With the recent deluge of articles on curing aids, cancer and even the common cold, is the future finally here?

      No. We still need an aneutronic microfusion generator, human-level AI, and antigravity.

      Of these the solution to our current energy crisis is the big one. AI is evolving constantly, and antigravity isn't really necessary if you simply have enough energy, but energy nothing is possible.

      Oh, and we also need to stop our slide to plutocracy, unless of course we want one of the more dystopic futures.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    15. Re:The future is here at last by ultranova · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That and using other people's needles for injecting drugs. It's just plain dumb. Might even say it's evolution in action.

      In action within people or within nations? Because there are several that looked at it calmly and rationally and started distributing clean needles to drug addicts, thus stopping the spread of HIV through that vector. And there are those that didn't, because that could seen as to be helping the undeserving.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    16. Re:The future is here at last by DJRumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      This goes beyond simple theories and pipe dreams. This was actively performed in a lab and the process is well documented. This actually pokes holes in the cholesterol membrane using a chemical called beta-cyclodextrin. This chemical binds to this special type of cholesterol around an HIV cell, which had two desired effects. It prevented the HIV virus from hyper-activating PDC's (the mechanism which damages the immune response itself), and it seems it also damaged it's ability to replicate. The chemical actually leaves the membrane riddled with holes due to this binding process.

      This is very promising in that the function they are disrupting is at the very root of what makes HIV effective in avoiding the immune system. Once this happens, the immune system is able to respond to the virus much like it would any other typical pathogen.

      The one thing that wasn't made clear was what the impact will be to those who are already infected. It sounds as if this could potentially be useful to existing infections as well but I haven't seen any statements to that effect as of yet.

    17. Re:The future is here at last by pclminion · · Score: 1

      And what does curing diseases have to do with cyborg augmentations?

      No disease to take you out early --> slow physical degradation of body components ("wearing out") --> miserable quality of life --> desire to replace worn body parts with artificial ones

    18. Re:The future is here at last by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      I agree, and to me anyways it sounds even more like a potential cure then a preventative measure.
      But I have heard of lots of miracle drugs going to even human trials, drugs that show huge success in labs (it does not mean that it will actually turn out to have significant real world effect).

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    19. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slide to plutocracy? There are only two choices that are sustainable. Social Democracy is not one of them.

      Robber Barons or Rice Paddies.

      Methinks you would rather have Rice Paddies by reason of the plaque(s) on your wall. It is only logical.

    20. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope to see that day in my life. It may seem strange to you but I had sex with only my ex-wife until I was 37 and she left. And that was because of the fear of HIV !

    21. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you mentioned with the 'as long as you maintain your health insurance anyway' quip, the disease really isn't on its way out in areas with less access to these anti-viral regimes. The long term push for a cure/vaccine has always been to create a single treatment solution to replace a lifetime treatment solution. With the former, a global effort to reduce HIV/AIDS infections to rates found in the first world (or less) is possible.

    22. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I had this chicken pizza the other day that was phenomenal.

      The secret? A small amount of feta cheese, it turns out. The chopped tomato didn't hurt either.

      Feta cheese, it turns out, isn't a very good idea. The secret? It promotes the health of the cholesterol membrane that HIV uses to disrupt the immune system, leading to quicker onset of AIDS.

    23. Re:The future is here at last by therealobsideus · · Score: 1

      HIV is a pandemic affecting many countries throughout the world. AIDS related deaths comes to over 1.8 million people a year - mostly in Africa, where they don't have the tools nor the knowledge to know when someone is infected. Where war is prevalent and rape is common. Where the drugs that make continued life possible are almost non-existent due to high prices and conflict. The deaths in India alone due to AIDS related illnesses accounts for more worldwide deaths than Malaria. That doesn't bring in Nigeria, who suffered over 200,000 deaths related to AIDS - or South Africa, with over 300,000. And you blame it on stupidity, saying that people shouldn't have sex with those that have seroconverted - when those that have contracted HIV most likely don't even know? Right.

    24. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not sure about the recent part, there have always been miracle cancer cures just around the corner for as long as I have been old enough to read the news.
      This is promising, but wake me up when they actually cure/prevent the disease in a person with this.

      And what does curing diseases have to do with cyborg augmentations?

      The actually cured someone of aids using a bone marrow transplant. The doctor who did the procedure said he couldn't think of any reason (except perhaps money) why no one had tried this method before.

    25. Re:The future is here at last by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1, Troll

      How about by not being such a promiscuous slut / manwhore? Being in an honest and monogamous relationship does wonders at stopping the spread of STDs. Instead, we're focusing on drugs and condoms so humanity can continue on with its wonton fuckfest.

      I don't know what you mean by "instead." Lots of people live honest and monogamous relationships.

      Including many people who are HIV positive.

      People also get it from blood, or from rape--including trafficking.

      If we didn't have condoms, the problem would be much worse. You can say "X is better," and even be right, but pretending some people aren't going to have sex no matter the consequences is naive at best. We should have as many ways to prevent the spread of HIV as reasonably possible and be honest and open about the problem.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    26. Re:The future is here at last by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not funny, Insightful. We could have Star Trek-level technology and we'd still suffer with the awful legacy of man's basest instincts and the old cognitive bugs from our days stalking prey and eluding predators in the jungle.

      If an AIDS vaccine were available on the market tomorrow, the right-wingers would want to stop it from being distributed, worried that it will cause autism or take the danger out of sexual promiscuity (see: HPV vaccine). Scientologists would worry that it will bring volcano spirits back into your soul or something. The alternative medicine crowd would say it's useless and a Big Pharma scam.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    27. Re:The future is here at last by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Go talk to Jay Leno, he's already ahead of the curve.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    28. Re:The future is here at last by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'm learning so much about fundie Christians and neo-feudalists in this discussion.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    29. Re:The future is here at last by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "This actually pokes holes in the cholesterol membrane using a chemical called beta-cyclodextrin. This chemical binds to this special type of cholesterol around an HIV cell, which had two desired effects. It prevented the HIV virus from hyper-activating PDC's (the mechanism which damages the immune response itself), and it seems it also damaged it's ability to replicate. The chemical actually leaves the membrane riddled with holes due to this binding process"

      I want someone with paid access to /. go through all my comments, because I proposed this EXACT method of attack YEARS AGO right here on /. I want to claim prior art, please. I'll repeat essentially what I said years ago here.

      Think of a virus as a 'syringe.' Now, if you break that syringe, it pretty much becomes useless, right? You don't have to worry about what's inside, because it will never make it to its intended injection target (assuming this thing doesn't gain some adaptation that allows the free-floating RNA to just be absorbed by immune cells) and thus be as effective as a gun loaded with blanks.

      Don't attack what's inside the syringe, attack the syringe itself. Compromise it, break that needle, make it lose containment. It's completely useless as a syringe after that.

      Maybe someone listened to my idea.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    30. Re:The future is here at last by Arancaytar · · Score: 1
    31. Re:The future is here at last by Khyber · · Score: 1

      --> requirement for pain blockers due to said artificial parts.

      A good bit of my skeleton is already made from titanium. It's not all that fun, really.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    32. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the recent deluge of articles on curing aids, cancer and even the common cold, is the future finally here? Are we going Deus Ex in a few years now?

      I am Legend 2: Awakening - Official Trailer [HD]

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qe6V_P6olA&

    33. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, thats not a bone and its not part of your skeleton.

    34. Re:The future is here at last by hxnwix · · Score: 2

      make it lose containment. It's completely useless ... after that.

      Maybe someone listened to my idea.

      Indeed, no researcher anywhere has ever considered attacking the AIDS virus cell wall. Step up and receive your Nobel prize, sir.

      Anyway, that's not even what's happening. The virus doesn't lose containment. To put this in your sort of parlance, this is more akin to disrupting a cloaking field than causing shields to be lowered. This cyclodextrine stuff uses photon torpedoes to alter the subspace field used to generate the cloaking field and only the cloaking field (ie the chloresterol layer) and not the virus vessel's shields (ie virus wall).

    35. Re:The future is here at last by Cryacin · · Score: 0

      Being honest and open amonst religious types IS the problem.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    36. Re:The future is here at last by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      I just read Sonia Arrison's "100 Plus". Didn't really tell me what I didn't know already, but it did expand on elements of getting the word out, of getting it out to the public. You see, I've read about life extension, from Heinlein's books, to Dr. Aubrey de Grey, and other leading lights of the human life and health span fields. But Arrison pulls it all together. We could conservatively get 150 years out of the human body, and that's the conservative estimate. And it's here now, not something that is a pipe dream. She touches on regenerative medicine and to me that's the most fascinating part. So far they've grown new bladders, esophagus, trachea, even livers, and limbs. It isn't long before we have all the vascularized tissues down too. Then couple it with the work done on spinal regeneration and it's a bright future indeed.

    37. Re:The future is here at last by Delarth799 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Right because the only way people can spread STDs is through sex Capt. Superiority with his high and mighty monogamous, never gonna end, relationship. People never get it through things like sharing needles or anything no.

    38. Re:The future is here at last by tverbeek · · Score: 2

      Me? Promiscuous? Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHA!

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    39. Re:The future is here at last by lennier · · Score: 1

      We still need an aneutronic microfusion generator

      and right after we got one of those, a huge set of heatsink fins for it. Mass deployment of clean fusion (assuming such a thing existed) might not generate CO2, but it would still pump a lot of excess heat into the atmosphere which could mess us up just as badly.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    40. Re:The future is here at last by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The chemical actually leaves the membrane riddled with holes due to this binding process"

      That's enough of a containment breach to render the cloaking ineffective, it seems. Remember, you can't really cloak damaged sections of a ship. How do you cloak damaged sections of a syringe? How do you cloak damaged sections of a virus?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    41. Re:The future is here at last by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      The one thing that wasn't made clear was what the impact will be to those who are already infected. It sounds as if this could potentially be useful to existing infections as well but I haven't seen any statements to that effect as of yet.

      Since most present treatments for HIV involve strengthening the immune system in the first place, I imagine that for anyone except a terminal patient it's likely to be effective. After all you don't have a finite amount of immune system cells - you're constantly making more, with the basic problem being that the HIV virus then cripples it faster then it can be renewed (at least by my somewhat uninformed understanding).

      It seems like this would move HIV potentially into being curable in a somewhat similar fashion to tuberculosis - it would take a while but you'd end up clearing it.

    42. Re:The future is here at last by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Are we going Deus Ex in a few years now?

      Looks like.

    43. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if the Christian Republicans in government work fast to outlaw an AIDS cure first.

      And don't think they won't try.

    44. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a 7 sugar ring cures aids, and an 8 sugar ring captures carbon dioxde, just imagine what a 9 sugar ring can do!

      Heres me thinking its just another miracle weightloss substance.

    45. Re:The future is here at last by zzyzyx · · Score: 1

      FYI the life expectancy of an AIDS patient is 65 years. Way better than it was at the start of the epidemic but not really a "normal healthy life" either.

      So don't go fuck a hooker without a condom just yet.

    46. Re:The future is here at last by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

      I hear this argument all the time, but I think this counter-argument is much more effective.

      If a drug company develops a working cure for HIV/AIDS, they can do no wrong for the next generation. They'll eventually own most other drug companies. Just imagine the commercials.
      "You could buy brand A aspirin or your could by GloboCureCorp's aspirin. Remember GloboCureCorp's fantastic success with the plague of the 20th century. Who are you going to trust your headache to? GloboCureCorp's aspirin, brought to you by the people who cured AIDS."

      A cure for AIDS is a virtual license to print money. No one would suppress that if they developed it.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    47. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: The super-ego is the part of your mind that criticizes you whenever you do something wrong, and is essentially a warped version of the most dominant parental influence from your childhood.

      You do know that Freud made that shit up, right? There was no scientific basis for any of it.

      (captcha: dominate)

    48. Re:The future is here at last by dalias · · Score: 1

      Apparently they also somehow failed to realize it was straight people, not gay people, having gay babies...

    49. Re:The future is here at last by bloobamator · · Score: 1

      You are completely overlooking Africa.

      --
      "Crude and slow, clansman. Your attack was no better than that of a clumsy child."
    50. Re:The future is here at last by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Strengthening immune system is the LAST thing you want to do in a HIV patient.

      You see, HIV kills off immune system by keeping it over-activated, essentially burning it out. Immunosuppressors were tried as HIV drugs back in 90-s - it hasn't worked out that well, though.

      Current treatments focus on controlling viral load by making it very hard for HIV to multiply.

    51. Re:The future is here at last by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      There's one thing the Internet has taught me - there are very few unique ideas. In the end, it's all about execution.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    52. Re:The future is here at last by lonecrow · · Score: 1

      Except in Europe (Italy) it was primarily a heroin addict disease. Which probably means that the same effect was at play but with a different "perceived undesirable"

    53. Re:The future is here at last by MJMullinII · · Score: 1

      I am not sure about the recent part, there have always been miracle cancer cures just around the corner for as long as I have been old enough to read the news.
      This is promising, but wake me up when they actually cure/prevent the disease in a person with this.

      And what does curing diseases have to do with cyborg augmentations?

      While you are current (same with "free energy" contraptions), HIV/AIDS is different than Cancer in that it is a Virus in the classic sense. One hell of a smart virus, to be sure -- but a virus none the less and ALL viruses can be defeated (even if the solution initially evades us).

      Simple as evolution itself, really.

      --
      "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
    54. Re:The future is here at last by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Fair point. Do pharmaceuticals get patents for their medicine? If yes this might actually work.

      BTW: comment moderation troll? really?

      --
      -- no sig today
    55. Re:The future is here at last by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well as far as I know all Cancers can be be defeated (even if the solution initially evades us).
      And if medical professionals are on the news telling me that they are a few trials away from significantly hampering Cancers death grip on on so many people then why would I believe them any less then a different group saying the same thing about their AIDS cure.
      And who said all viruses can be defeated. I highly doubt that anyone has ever proven, or even provided good evident for, that being a fact?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    56. Re:The future is here at last by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Fair point. Do pharmaceuticals get patents for their medicine? If yes this might actually work.

      Oh hell yes. Think about this, if they didn't would we really have three competing boner pills on the market today?

      As things stand today, in the US, I believe that they get 20 years from the moment of invention. If it takes 8 years to get through clinical trials, they still have 12 years to make a bazillion dollars off of it. If it works with no or very few serious side-effects, you could imagine a smallpox-like vaccination effort. Every new child would get the vaccine. Most adults would get it. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that 3 billion people could possible get this cure before the patent runs out. So, let's be conservative here. We'll say that it costs 1,000 per person for the cure. Over the course of those 12 years, we're talking about over a trillion dollars in sales. You just can't beat that.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    57. Re:The future is here at last by DrStoooopid · · Score: 1

      ..and that means we can go back to wantonly f*cking anyone we want...

      --
      There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
    58. Re:The future is here at last by 6Yankee · · Score: 1

      This being /., I think he meant to say "ambidextrous". *ducks*

    59. Re:The future is here at last by jkflying · · Score: 1

      In South Africa people have discovered that injecting the ARVs makes you high. So now the HIV+ people who DO get medication are at the risk of being mugged for their medication.

      This world...

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    60. Re:The future is here at last by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      With the recent deluge of articles on curing aids, cancer and even the common cold, is the future finally here? Are we going Deus Ex in a few years now?

      No, because as we cure all of these diseases, we've also created some nice nasty replacements, like MRSA infections that ignore our antibiotics.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    61. Re:The future is here at last by madhi19 · · Score: 1

      Actually there plenty of cancer with a much higher survivable rate now than barely two decades ago.

    62. Re:The future is here at last by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      >desire to replace worn body parts with artificial ones--> An Age of Steel sweeping the planet --> The Doctor coming back to sort our shit out...

      There - FTFY

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    63. Re:The future is here at last by slydder · · Score: 0

      hey. look at it this way. they thought you may actually have a sex life. ;)

    64. Re:The future is here at last by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      I know that feeling. My wife has Type 1 diabetes, and every once in a while a new 'breakthrough' is reached- only to be put to test for the next 7 years.

      And what's wrong with cyborg augmentations? They're cool! Heh.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    65. Re:The future is here at last by Zanadou · · Score: 1

      With the recent deluge of articles on curing aids, cancer and even the common cold, is the future finally here? Are we going Deus Ex in a few years now?

      Didn't you get the memo? Don't forget we just broke the speed of light! The future was here few days ago!

    66. Re:The future is here at last by cpricejones · · Score: 1

      What I am wondering about is how this compound would not harm cellular membranes, which contain cholesterol-rich regions (lipid rafts). HIV particles bud from these regions, giving them their particular cholesterol-rich membrane composition. This is a question related to theoretical off-target cytotoxic effects. Then again, RTIs have cytotoxic effects, too.

    67. Re:The future is here at last by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      This is a great quote. I like it. I'm going to repost it in a place where it gets far more notoriety though.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    68. Re:The future is here at last by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      "This goes beyond simple theories and pipe dreams. This was actively performed in a lab and the process is well documented."
      The majority of cures/treatments that work in a lab are still pipe dreams. There's a shitload of stuff you can do to a virus in a test tube that you can't do in a human body.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    69. Re:The future is here at last by cpricejones · · Score: 1

      If you look back, originally it started appearing in young gay men (1981 I think). But within 1 year, women were documented with the disease. You can probably blame politicians at the time for making the wrong decisions if you want. There has been a similar reaction from Russian politicians who for a large time ignored the disease there (which is in a way far worse because it's spread to a much higher degree by intravenous drug users, which is the worst form of transmission). And if you compare certain sub-Saharan countries based on the political impetus for controlling the disease, there is a clear drop in new cases for countries that educate the population about condom use. I dont think they by and large think of the disease as a way of getting rid of gays but something that either does not really exist in their population or something religious-related (God's punishment blah blah blah).

    70. Re:The future is here at last by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      This is a great quote. I like it. I'm going to repost it in a place where it gets far more notoriety though.

      Slashdot?

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    71. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds very interesting however, what is a caution here is that this really does not answer the real question here and that is how to reduce the virulence of the disease while a vaccine for those who are not infected is a great thing what about those that are already infected and don't even know it? The fact here is that testing is still the number one thing that most people do not want to address, until we know how many people "really" have this disease we can never know how long it will take to cure it, this is an important step, but it hardly can be expected to be a game changer.

    72. Re:The future is here at last by phorm · · Score: 1

      I also once read that, due to the level of fluid absorption rates and/or other factors (between orifice used), normal copulation between straight couples had a lower chance of transmission.

      Of course some straight couples don't necessary use the reproductive orifice, but the overall population is at a bit less of a risk of transmission.

    73. Re:The future is here at last by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      Fun fact: that was largely because at first it spread amongst gay men quicker then heterosexuals, and the prevailing attitude was "great, this will finally get rid of the gays!"

      If you're going to put the word 'fact' in that, then [Citation Needed].

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    74. Re:The future is here at last by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      It's hardly an original idea, but I think I can execute it better.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    75. Re:The future is here at last by doccus · · Score: 1

      Have they also discovered the mechanism by which immunity to HIV is conferred in a small segment of the population? .. The human body is riddled with sugars such as this beta-cyclodextrin.. i would not be surprised if this is the exact mechanism implemented naturally..

    76. Re:The future is here at last by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Of course some straight couples don't necessary use the reproductive orifice, but the overall population is at a bit less of a risk of transmission."

      I'd prefer to think most straight couples enjoy all the available orifices. Certainly the vast majority with the puritans being the exception and not the norm.

    77. Re:The future is here at last by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "FYI the life expectancy of an AIDS patient is 65 years"

      Not that much shorter than the typical lifespan of a male. Females are an entirely different animal (one that causes the stress which results in males having a shorter lifespan in the first place).

    78. Re:The future is here at last by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Whats wrong with that?

    79. Re:The future is here at last by DrStoooopid · · Score: 1

      did I say there was anything wrong with that? *giggity*giggity*

      --
      There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
    80. Re:The future is here at last by mldi · · Score: 1

      And the left-wingers would want to raise taxes 5% and force everyone to take it.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    81. Re:The future is here at last by mldi · · Score: 1

      This is promising, but wake me up when they actually cure/prevent the disease in a person with this.

      My thoughts exactly. I don't demean their research, but realistically I'm not that interested in a play-by-play for the development. I'll consider all this a breakthrough when I can go down to Walgreens and get an AIDS vaccine.

      Most likely it'll still be administered in a hospital setting so they can monitor your raging fever when your immune system suddenly is reactivated. Who knows what you'd have swimming through your body unchecked until then.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    82. Re:The future is here at last by jafac · · Score: 1

      I would say that our #1 technology need (humanity) - is to find a way to convince other humans that civilization (a social contract) is necessary; OR - to find a way to let those who decide to opt out, opt out without fucking up the world for the rest of us.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    83. Re:The future is here at last by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Slide to plutocracy? There are only two choices that are sustainable. Social Democracy is not one of them.

      Social Democracy was sustained in most of Europe for two generations since World War II. Our economies only started going to Hell once we bought into the whole "Robber Barons rule" -paradigm (also known as Libertarianism).

      You know this too, that's why you posted as an Anonymous Coward.

      Methinks you would rather have Rice Paddies by reason of the plaque(s) on your wall. It is only logical.

      If I had to choose between these, I'd certainly chose Rice Paddies, because I'm not a baron, so I'll get a higher standard of living that way.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    84. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want someone to use Google themselves instead of asking others to search for things on their behalf.

    85. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't kid yourself. The drugs used now to control HIV have serious side effects, many of which actually involve cholesterol and the cardiovascular system, as well as the liver, as many are hightly hepatotoxic. Peripheral neuropathy is also a common complaint. Have they extended life for those infected? Absolutely. Is that life and lifespan normal? Not at all. (and I know MANY!)

      BTW my brother is the scientist at the root of this discovery, having discovered the building blocks used while a PhD student at Hopkins. It's real, and there is no reason to think that it would not benefit those already infected, since the immune system is still active, just behaving abnormally. Take away the cellular smoke and mirrors the virus uses to hijack the immune system, and it should start funtioning appropriately again. BUT, human trials and treatments using these discoveries are still a ways off.

    86. Re:The future is here at last by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I'll consider all this a breakthrough when I can go down to Walgreens and get an AIDS vaccine.

      Okay, so, respectfully: perhaps you should be trolling the Walgreens forums? People on this site are interested in scientific developments, of which this is one.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  2. Real or hype? by vlm · · Score: 1

    Scientists say

    traditional indication of hype

    could lead

    Oh its just hype after all.

    Oh well... I'd like a /. story about how its real easy to have a working nuclear fusion reactor. All you need is to build a reactor, and then turn it on. No big deal, everyone be happy now.

    This is not a story about vaccine trials, just a "wouldn't it be great if ..."

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Real or hype? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Uh, it is (relatively) easy to have a working fusion reactor. The big problem is that it consumes energy rather than producing it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Real or hype? by joss · · Score: 1

      Its not that complicated when you go large.. like the sun for instance. Something medium sized would be good though, last I heard they were about 20 years away (they've been saying that for about 40 years though so.. ymmv etc)

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    3. Re:Real or hype? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know, slashdot is a fun place to read comments because occasionally you'll get a pro biochemist or a gifted grad student giving real, informed commentary.

      Posts like this, though - the uninformed cynicism is as unhelpful as the "Yay! The Cure is Here!" uninformed optimism.

    4. Re:Real or hype? by edumacator · · Score: 2

      This is not a story about vaccine trials, just a "wouldn't it be great if ..."

      The title is a bit misleading, but the content isn't. Knowing how to disarm the virus is a significant development. It's certainly not the same thing as a cure, but it is more than hype.

    5. Re:Real or hype? by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      I also wonder, how they retain cholesterol at normal body cells that need it to their normal function.

    6. Re:Real or hype? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or like we put 2 carbon atoms together in a lab, therefore space elevators. Someone is charging an outrageous amount of money for a glue gun on an old printer motor, therefore we will print cars and houses. The most powerful country on Earth (at the time) spent an entire decade to get two men to walk on the Moon for a few hours, therefore we will colonize the universe.

      How am I doing so far? Got the flavor of the sci-fi deluded clueless geek?

    7. Re:Real or hype? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that the cynicism comes from being informed.

    8. Re:Real or hype? by JonySuede · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here in Canada, they had a working tokamak producing an iota more than it consumed, while in steady state. When they reach that point the gov killed the project. Yes, the net balance was still negative, as it consumed a shit load of energy to get into that state and for some untold reasons, the researchers were not allowed to run it long enough to achieve a positive net balance. The tokamak name was Tokamak de Varennes.

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    9. Re:Real or hype? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like a /. story about how its real easy to have a working nuclear fusion reactor.."

      Like a farnsworth device? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor)

      Oh wait, did you want to generate net power...?

    10. Re:Real or hype? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no signs of informedness. Informed looks like, "sure, you can damage the envelope in a test tube, but doing that in a human subject without killing the host is going to be 99% of the work." Which may or may not be true, or bullshit, but it implies, you know, knowing something relevant to the article.

    11. Re:Real or hype? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Its not that complicated when you go large.. like the sun for instance.

      Isn't the sun operating at a net energy loss, though?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  3. "vaccine breakthrough?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't anything of the sort. It's laboratory discovery of potentially immense importance that could lead to a vaccine, but right now that's all; it hasn't been tested in animals.

    captcha: worded.

  4. What a week by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

    the cure for AIDS, coming at you faster than the speed of light!

    1. Re:What a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... from a double-decker sized satellite from space! Using time-travel! AWE!

  5. About time. by Commontwist · · Score: 1

    Given all the research being put into AIDS and cancer, the ever growing understanding on how viruses and the body works, and the increasing human ability to manipulate things on a nanoscale I was beginning to wonder what was taking so long.

    Heck, once AIDS is solved, cancer should be next, and I hope some kind of universal anti-viral agent that boosts the immune system's effectiveness ten fold eventually comes. Something that can clean up plaque from blood vessels would be nice too.

    1. Re:About time. by Huntr · · Score: 2

      I liked this article from a few days ago about using AIDS to kill cancer. http://nyti.ms/ouwqci Seemed poetic or something.

    2. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain to me what attacking the HIV has to do with fighting Cancer? How does being able to cripple one type of virus automatically fix the failure rate of the human bodies cells to regenerate? Cancer is a condition caused by a hundred and one things, AIDS is a condition caused by a handfull of things. You can not reasonably expect a breakthrough in one to immediatly mean a solution to the other.

    3. Re:About time. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Thinking of Cancer as one disease is about the same as thing every infection as one disease.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    4. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Funny, I've got a self-help book coming out with that very title.

    5. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would mean having to say "no" to foods that do not taste like cardboard and having to say "no" to X-Box 360 and Playstation 3. Left unchecked, this invariably leads to listening to music by George Harrison, moving to places like Edison, New Jersey, getting a clean office job that once paid a homeowner salary, and drinking one's own u!*|{

      NO CARRIER

    6. Re:About time. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That will help reduce the build-up of plaque but won't stop or reverse it AFAIK.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:About time. by Commontwist · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. Read that one as well. Very interesting.

      A disease is the cure to another disease. Heh. Understanding viruses teaches us more about the human immune system because the viruses have obviously evolved ways to shut our immune response down or use it against us. Once we fully understand the human immune system and its weaknesses then we can figure out how to improve it.

    8. Re:About time. by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

      Thinking of Cancer as one disease is about the same as thing every infection as one disease.

      While partially true, one thing that makes a universal treatment against cancer more likely to ever be found than one against infections is that cancer doesn't spread from one person to another. This more or less prevents it from evolving and developing resistance at the same rate bacteria do, and if a cancer tumor were to develop resistance to a treatment, it will die with the patient and not spread the resistance to others.

      Contrast this with multi-resistant tuberculosis. Because it is hard to kill, and require long treatments, the chance of somebody developing a resistant infection is quite high. The long treatment times make matters even worse since people in developing countries sometimes run out of medicine and cannot afford to complete their treatment. They then end up infecting others , and so you have a resistant strain which can quickly become a global health problem.

      Btw, somebody seeing the argument for universal health-care yet ? Leave the poor without medical care and they basically become an incubator for multi-resistant bacterial strains that will eventually come back and bite you or somebody you care about. That's Karma bitches!

  6. Re:And what about the African population control? by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 1

    Assuming that is true, I suspect that reform of immigration is a slightly more humane option than the equivalent of letting letting the homeless die each winter to reduce the number of beggars one must pass when wandering around the city.

  7. Cure for aids already discovered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont understand why the progress for aids research keeps being posted. They already found an antibody that will eliminate 90% of aids virus's. It is in Phase 1 Human Trials right now. Everything regarding aids research is old news.

    1. Re:Cure for aids already discovered by ponchietto · · Score: 2

      What about the other 10%?

    2. Re:Cure for aids already discovered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

      And I don't mean "pulled out of your ass".

    3. Re:Cure for aids already discovered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or from wikipedia, because it's pretty much the same as "pulled out of your ass".

    4. Re:Cure for aids already discovered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or from wikipedia, because it's pretty much the same as "pulled out of your ass".

      The phrase "citation needed" comes from Wikipedia itself, you fucking idiot.

      May Christ rapture you swiftly.

    5. Re:Cure for aids already discovered by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      May Christ rapture you swiftly.

      This is an original curse!!! Can I subscribe to your newsletter? Please!!? Get yourself an account at least and tell what it is here so I can find it.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  8. Still Infected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would the patient remain HIV+, even if a vaccine is preventing the virus from attacking it's host? Can the virus still be transferred to others?

    1. Re:Still Infected? by Cyko_01 · · Score: 1

      RTFA
      the vaccine does not prevent the virus from attacking it's host. It enables the immune system of the host to fight back and kill the virus

  9. Nope, it is still in the future by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article hints at a way to attack the virus in the lab. There is absolutely no attempt yet to do the same in a human body. Can it be done safely? While the article says the cholestrerol membrane is not the same as the one that occurs in things related to coronary disease, is it maybe in use somewhere else? Wouldn't be much point in an AIDS vacine that causes you to fall apart in a puddle.

    But the cure for AIDS has been here for a long time. How many people do you know with AIDS? I am not just making another joke about slashdotters not having sex, which isn't funny at all damn you!, but am serious. AIDS was this terrible nightmare from a by gone era when some people who made a lot of noise in the media had unprotected sex with everyone else in the group.

    When people stopped doing that, AIDS practically disappeared to the point that young people again think it is safe to have unprotected sex with anyone.

    The cure is latex, it works, it has been tried and tested. Not science, or as you put it, the futures fault you refuse to take your medicine.

    It has always struck me as odd that it tooks AIDS to get people to start using condoms. Like the other diseases out there are not highly dangerous. This story itself is more likely to kill more people before it can start to cure as people think, "Oh there is a cure, we can fuck around again with no condom". This was the result of all the previous aids blocker stories were people interpreted it as a cure and so didn't care anymore.

    Odd stuff, just because we got cure for food poisoning doesn't mean people started eating rotten food on purpose.

    As for Africa, the aids epidemic is a symthom not the disease itself. Remove aids and the causes for mass infections remain.

    Good news that there is a potential new avenue to create a medicine BUT it not yet here and the underlying problems have not been tackled. Humanity is still its old self.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by ZankerH · · Score: 0

      And what would the "underlying cause" be? People having sex? Are you advocating an abstinence-only approach?

    2. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by hedwards · · Score: 2

      One doesn't need abstinence in order to be HIV negative for an entire life. One just needs to get regularly tested, use protection and keep sex partners to some sort of sane number. And avoid sharing needles. Then there's the rare occurence of contracting HIV from a transfusion, but that's a risk that's sufficiently low for most people to not even bother worrying bout. If people would do that, then HIV wouldn't be common and would probably just die out in a matter of time.

    3. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by durrr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The cure for AIDS, which stands for Aquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome(meaning, that you have it when you have AQUIRED a immunological deficiency in case the name didn't hind at that for you) Is retroviral drugs.

      In case you have problem with neuances i'll spell it out for you. A HIV infection if left untreated will result in AIDS, at which point you're pretty much toast. A HIV infection on its own does not however qualify as AIDS with modern retroviral treatment(or the intial stage without treatment) will keep viral counts low enough that you do not Aquire any ImmunoDefciency.

      Now in fact, that's not a cure for AIDS, it's a postponing of it. As for the cure to HIV, it's not condoms. Condoms are a preventive measure against HIV, not a cure.
      Now if you excuse me I'll have to crash the moon into earth before I have to repeat this rant any more times.

    4. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what would the "underlying cause" be? People having sex? Are you advocating an abstinence-only approach?

      The cure is latex, it works, it has been tried and tested.

    5. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus dude... you starting with a mostly rational opener and then just took a running leap off of bat-shit cliff.

      AIDS is not all media hype. People have it. More people will get it. Fixing that is "a good thing".

      And yes, we know that crazy problems and a lack of education result in higher infection rates in Africa. Well that, and the church condemning the use of condoms. But that doesn't have much to do with whether or not we want a vaccine, ya'know?

    6. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was condoms that caused people to start using the phrase "it's better than sex" when referring to pleasure activities. Cuz without one, I can't think of anything better than sex. And if you've practiced "safe" sex your entire life, you're truly missing out.

    7. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by XavierGr · · Score: 2

      AIDS was this terrible nightmare from a by gone era when some people who made a lot of noise in the media had unprotected sex with everyone else in the group.

      AIDS is still a nightmare in third word countries. Don't dismiss it just because symptoms in the developed world are relatively scarce.

    8. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem is there is this nasty thing called "religion" whose adherents keep on insisting that condoms are somehow wrong, and that sex is for procreation only.

      A big part of the problem is all those religious jerks that are coming to those third world countries to insist on that. Fortunately they're not getting all that much traction in civilized places, but in third world countries it's devastating.

      Add to that ridiculous notions held by people in some of those countries, like that sex with a virgin will cure you, and you have one horrible mess as a result.

      Kicking out all those missionaries and bringing in some proper education would do wonders.

    9. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The trouble with having large families, is that large families are themselves a cause for many of the problems...

      You have a shortage of food and can't afford to feed yourself properly, so you have lots of kids and make the problem worse?

      You may need lots of kids to look after you in old age, but who is going to look after them? They will have to do the same and so you get very rapid population growth... Population grows to unsustainable levels and then any problems like food shortage become much worse.

      The situation reaches a point where the land simply cannot sustain the current level of population, and this population level is maintained artificially high by shipments of food from foreign countries.

      Also when you have a situation of insufficient resources, people become desperate to acquire those resources via any means necessary and that results in ever more brutal wars.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    10. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      The cure is latex, it works, it has been tried and tested.

      You know that. I know that. But try telling that to all the zillion word users out there...

    11. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cure *isn't* latex. Cure implies that it already happened. Condoms are, however, a good precaution. Something you use to avoid.

      Other than that, I do agree with you. Sadly technology moves faster than society.

    12. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      ow if you excuse me I'll have to crash the moon into earth before I have to repeat this rant any more times.

      maybe if you crashed the moon into earth, all those stupid earthlings would stop crashing their rockets between the moons, and the epidemic might stop...

    13. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2

      The cure is latex, it works, it has been tried and tested. Not science, or as you put it, the futures fault you refuse to take your medicine.

      ...

      Odd stuff, just because we got cure for food poisoning doesn't mean people started eating rotten food on purpose.

      If rotten food tasted a whole helluvalot better than safe food, they would.

    14. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by janimal · · Score: 1

      Odd that it takes a death threat to get people to use condoms? Condoms take the animal unbridled instinct feeling out of sex, which makes it less fun. The fun in sex is to a large extent due to the fact that it's on kernel code level. The moment you have to escape from kernel code into userland, you lose the feeling of... lack of control :) The point of fornication (which sex with a condom definitely attempts to be) is the pleasure you get out of letting your most basic programming take over. Pulling out a condom is almost like hearing "I think we should paint the ceiling blue".

    15. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      You are calling him racist for pointing out the rape epidemic in Africa? Are we just not allowed to talk about it? Some sort of moral relativity/the third world is always right sort of thing?

    16. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not science? So, you think the recipe for making latex was in your bible?

    17. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cure is latex, it works, it has been tried and tested.

      You know, unprotected sex isn't the only way you can get HIV. Sure, it may be the most common, but you can't guarantee you won't get HIV from a number of other possible routes, of which sharing needles is the most common but far from the only possible route. There are known cases of HIV infection being transmitted from mother to unborn child, via blood transfusions or organ donations, via contact with open wounds or splatters of blood, and via shared razors among other routes.

      Unless you're suggesting we all live our entire lives in bubbles of latex, your suggestion does not (entirely) work.

    18. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by vadim_t · · Score: 2

      The religious argument is "Listen, we think you should only have sex with the person you're married with, and you should also procreate." You can agree with this or not (I don't, for the record), but you can't twist it.

      No, this is wrong. It implies that contraception in marriage is okay. Maybe if you have children at some point, as your sentence isn't very clear on that.

      The religious argument is:

      1. Sex only in a marriage
      2. Each sex act must be unitive and procreative. You're not allowed to artificially interfer with the procreative part.

      Natual infertility or menopause is fine, not having sex is fine. Condoms, pills, IUDs or anything else of the sort is not. In my understanding, any time you have sex there must exist a possibility of pregnancy.

      Problem is, this doesn't work. Solutions to AIDS must be based on how people actually behave, not how some church a lot of people don't adhere to anyway thinks they should be behaving. Like Feynman said, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

    19. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by MrNaz · · Score: 2

      Don't go lumping all religions together. There is nothing in Islam that says contraception isn't allowed, and there's plenty of literature (both recent and ancient) on the subject that says that sex can and should be fun.

      --
      I hate printers.
    20. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Point, I should have said "Catholicism"

      Allowing contraception is of course better, but it's still full of ridiculous rules like no sex outside of marriage.

    21. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      No, the religion isn't the problem. The problem is people only listening to part of what the religious people are saying. Most (all?) of the religions that forbid condoms also preach sex for procreative purposes in marriage only. If you have sex with one person (and only one person), and they do the same for their entire life, it's nigh on impossible to get an STD. In fact, I'm pretty sure the safety margin is far, far higher than that with condoms. From wikipedia, the risk reduction from using a condom is about 85-95%. Much better than unprotected sex, but definitely not 100%. Condoms are NOT a preventative of STDs, they only reduce the chances (considerably). Now, maybe if everyone used condoms all the time, STD rates would (collectively) drop, but any scientist, who is being honest, would tell you that if people had as much unprotected sex as they wanted, but with only one person, STDs would vanish in about a single generation.

      I should also add that humans cannot use condoms 100% of the time, as it would mean devastate our population. Japan is a pretty good example: their birth rate is currently significantly lower than their death rate (~40% lower, and that is only likely to become worse as their population ages). Condoms are at best an imperfect solution to STDs. At worse, they encourage more sexual promiscuity, which because they aren't 100% effective can easily lead to an increase in the risk of infection (over less unprotected sex.) Not saying that actually happens in practice, I don't know. However, I feel I should point out that if people actually listened to what those missionaries you so deride really say, AIDS would vanish much, much faster than it would merely through condom usage.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    22. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      And then your argument is:
      1. Have as much sex as you want.
      2. Use a condom.

      Surprise surprise, people, especially in poor countries, often only listen to the first part. So, using your quote of Feynman (in fact, in my case it's more applicable, since condoms are an actual technology), condoms are not a practical solution.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    23. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      No, the religion isn't the problem. The problem is people only listening to part of what the religious people are saying. Most (all?) of the religions that forbid condoms also preach sex for procreative purposes in marriage only.

      Yes it is. Problem with that, people have been demonstrated not to care that much about the "sex for procreative purposes in marriage only" part. However, the condoms part seems to work a lot better.

      Why is that? Probably because controlling behavior, especially what people do in private is very difficult. Controlling what gets sold or produced is a lot easier.

      Hence with religion you get lack of condoms, as well as people ignoring the "no sex outside of marriage" part. Condoms and sex outside of marriage would work a lot better, and in fact does as can be seen from the difference between first and third world countries: in first world countries population and STDs are well controlled, while in the third world it's an epidemic and people breed like rabbits.

      Like I said, a solution to the problem must be realistic. Solutions that involve convicing the population to behave in a way that they're repeated shown they are not going to are invalid.

      Now, maybe if everyone used condoms all the time, STD rates would (collectively) drop, but any scientist, who is being honest, would tell you that if people had as much unprotected sex as they wanted, but with only one person, STDs would vanish in about a single generation.

      Yes, and if everybody agreed not to kill people we'd save a bunch on law enforcement, but that's not going to happen either. It's pointless to think about that, people aren't going to behave in some idealized way. We need to make solutions for how they actually do.

      I should also add that humans cannot use condoms 100% of the time, as it would mean devastate our population. Japan is a pretty good example: their birth rate is currently significantly lower than their death rate (~40% lower, and that is only likely to become worse as their population ages).

      So? When people want to have children they generally do it inside marriage. Condoms don't prevernt people from having children, they can easily choose not to use one when they want to.

      But in a modern society such as Japan, children are expensive, people marry late and care about their carreers and education and so on. People in Japan don't have children because for whatever reason they figure it'd be a bad idea, not because they're incapable of deciding not to use a condom somehow.

      For instance, most people think they should have their own home before having children. Housing being so expensive doesn't help.

    24. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Bengie · · Score: 1

      "People having sex" is as much the reason for people having AIDs as people sports getting broken bones. It may contribute a lot, but isn't the only reason.

      I'm also assuming, from your judgmental tone, that you think people "sleeping around" is the issue. Well, some times some people cheat on their spouses and the other spouse doesn't know. The person who is "faithful" still gets AIDs.

    25. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Precisely, part 1 is the thing. People are going to have sex whether you tell them they shouldn't or not.

      They have plenty religious types telling them they shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage yet nobody pays attention to it.

      That people will have sex is a given, all that can be done is giving them a way to do it without getting infected.

    26. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the missionaries are letting perfect be the enemy of good. Their perfect plan for the elimination of STDs, when executed imperfectly, leads to a horrific spread of STDs (since they don't recommend condoms, so every slip-up has a great chance of spreading STDs and causing unwanted pregnancies). A scientist's less ambitious, imperfect plan for the reduction of STD spreading, when executed imperfectly, will still cut down on the spread of STDs (since people might "forget" to use a condom, but at least they'll know they should and won't see it as a bad thing. The people who are infected will have trouble spreading it to other partners most of the time, unlike the "just stay monogamous, pretty please?" plan.).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    27. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, you're a scary fucker O_O

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    28. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Decades of diligent missionary work condemning condoms. And a cultural tolerance of rape.

    29. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      If people did exactly what you're claiming Missionaries are saying, then AIDS would disappear in a generation or two. You're protestations simply show your prejudices against "religion". Please bear in mind the "have lots of sex" liberals, like yourself, don't do anything to stop AIDS from spreading. And in the case of Africa, where culturally it is quite permissible to gang rape women repeatedly, the "don't have sex outside of marriage" message is actually better than leaving the status quo, don't you think?

      Yes, education is key, but so is wearing condoms if you're going to be promiscuous, keeping your dick in your pants if you're not going to wear one. But that last option offends people who want to fuck like dogs in heat.

      What I find completely interesting, is that people like yourself have continue to promote women as sex objects, under the guise of "woman's rights".

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    30. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by vadim_t · · Score: 2

      If people did exactly what you're claiming Missionaries are saying, then AIDS would disappear in a generation or two.

      I repeat: solutions must be reality based.

      Yes, if they did, it would work. But people don't, which has been proven over and over. So a realistic solution must start from accepting that fact and finding a solution that allows for promiscuity.

      And in the case of Africa, where culturally it is quite permissible to gang rape women repeatedly, the "don't have sex outside of marriage" message is actually better than leaving the status quo, don't you think?

      What, you seriously think that if somebody who would commit rape hears the "no sex outside marriage" message they're going to obey it?

      People who decide to rape already are going against mountains of morals and laws, adding an extra one isn't going to make much of a difference. They already have found some way to justify their actions, they'll find one to justify adultery just fine.

      Here the problem runs much deeper and isn't going to be solved that easily. A solution has to include education, law enforcement and cultural changes.

      What I find completely interesting, is that people like yourself have continue to promote women as sex objects, under the guise of "woman's rights".

      I'm intrigued, explain how does that work?

    31. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by styrotech · · Score: 1

      It seems you don't quite understand the definition of the word "cure".

    32. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by instagib · · Score: 2

      The programming references were good, but I think I still need a car analogy.

    33. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "condoms are somehow wrong, and that sex is for procreation only... religious jerks that are coming to those third world countries to insist..." that the poor stay the poor, and the rich (White) folk remain firmly in control.

      Sorry, your view is sad and misguided. The reality is much worse, and creates an intentional unmitigated tragedy.

    34. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Catholicism? Not supporting it but the prevalence of catholics with AIDS isn't huge compared to a certain continental prevalence.

    35. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      It's not just that, it's that the churches are often complicit in perpetuating myths about HIV transmission. The Catholic church in particular has done a lot of damage in Africa by encouraging the myth that condoms have no effect on HIV transmission.

    36. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      How does testing prevent the *acquisition* of HIV? It isn't like it can be detected early and eradicated.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    37. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by webtron · · Score: 1

      It prevents *acquisition* because when you are first infected you are highly infectious to others. The sooner the know, the lower the chance you expose others. Also, once you are being treated your risk to others drops significantly. Significantly less.

    38. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have sex with one person (and only one person), and they do the same for their entire life, it's nigh on impossible to get an STD. In fact, I'm pretty sure the safety margin is far, far higher than that with condoms.

      Except if the person you married was raped by someone with HIV, or contracted it from their mother. Although your method would reduce the chances of spreading the STD as it would contain it within a single family unit, it would still suck.

    39. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      A big part of the problem is all those religious jerks that are coming to those third world countries to insist on that. Fortunately they're not getting all that much traction in civilized places, but in third world countries it's devastating.

      I would really like to find out where you're getting statistics on that. I've lived in a highly catholic developing country, and the citizens have no problem using condoms. I'm guessing that's a problem you made up, not one that exists in the real world.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    40. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cure is latex, it works, it has been tried and tested. Not science, or as you put it, the futures fault you refuse to take your medicine.

      ...

      Odd stuff, just because we got cure for food poisoning doesn't mean people started eating rotten food on purpose.

      If rotten food tasted a whole helluvalot better than safe food, they would.

      Blue Cheese?

    41. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      I repeat: solutions must be reality based.

      So, what you're saying is that people can't keep their dicks in their pants. Gotcha

      But people don't,

      Doesn't mean they have to. People do all sorts of things that are bad for them, all the time. Smoking, Drinking too much, Drugs ... Should we provide "safe smoking", "safe drinking" and "safe crack"?

      What, you seriously think that if somebody who would commit rape hears the "no sex outside marriage" message they're going to obey it?

      Are you saying we shouldn't change the rape culture in Africa with "Rape, but wear a condom" campaign? Your way sounds more ridiculous.

      People who decide to rape already are going against mountains of morals and laws

      It is cultural, hence why it is a problem. They don't have any "moral" qualms about it, and there is little or now "law" enforcement to protect the women. I suggest we send in Clinton and Gingrich in to save them, two guys who can't keep theirs in their pants. ;)

      I'm sorry you missed this point as well .."And in the case of Africa, where culturally it is quite permissible to gang rape women repeatedly, the "don't have sex outside of marriage" message is actually better than leaving the status quo, don't you think?"

      I'm intrigued, explain how does that work?

      I'm surprised that you don't view most porn as the objectification of women. Saddened too that you didn't know what I was implying.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    42. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is there is this nasty thing called "religion" whose adherents keep on insisting that condoms are somehow wrong, and that sex is for procreation only.

      A big part of the problem is all those religious jerks that are coming to those third world countries to insist on that. Fortunately they're not getting all that much traction in civilized places, but in third world countries it's devastating.

      Add to that ridiculous notions held by people in some of those countries, like that sex with a virgin will cure you, and you have one horrible mess as a result.

      Kicking out all those missionaries and bringing in some proper education would do wonders.

      Good God y'all, let's continue to spread hate without looking it up!
      Pope Benedict says that condoms can be used to stop the spread of HIV

      The pope is saying that if you can prevent disease, the use of condoms could be permissible," said John Allen, senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter. "But this has been in the mix for a while," he argued. "I think Benedict has been thinking this way since 2006, which is why he asked for the commission to look into it.

      "The problem was not Benedict, it was others in the Vatican who argued that if you said using condoms was OK in certain situations, it would send out the message that they were approved. This was a PR problem."

      Vatican Adds Nuance to Pope’s Condom Remarks

      Yet it added that “those involved in prostitution who are H.I.V. positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity.”

      But no, let's kick out all the missionaries and continue hating on religion. Nothing like kicking out charity organizations to solve the problem guys, am I right. Next you're going to say that all those people benefiting from the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation attempting to do something about Malaria are all evil and should stop getting help from them since they're supporting the crazy shit Microsoft does at times.

      Jesus H. Christ people. Just because you are against religion doesn't make it right to be both uninformed and rabid in your hate.

    43. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in one of the 'third world countries', it's funny to read your comment. People here are calling some 'western science' are 'nasty', and 'western scientist and people' are 'jerks'.

      You have no idea about how the real life we are living, we live in a religious environment where 'western lifestyle' came and make a 'horrible mess'.

    44. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      So, what you're saying is that people can't keep their dicks in their pants. Gotcha

      Yes, that's pretty much it. We have a natural drive to have sex that doesn't much care about marriage.

      Doesn't mean they have to. People do all sorts of things that are bad for them, all the time. Smoking, Drinking too much, Drugs ... Should we provide "safe smoking", "safe drinking" and "safe crack"?

      Yes. Remember how the Prohibition was in the US? It got repealed for a reason.

      I fully support the legalization of drugs.

      Are you saying we shouldn't change the rape culture in Africa with "Rape, but wear a condom" campaign? Your way sounds more ridiculous.

      No. I'm saying that adding a "sex outside of marriage" prohibition isn't going to do anything for it. Somebody who is already going to commit murder or rape isn't going to stop just because you add a jaywalking type of charge on top.

      In fact that may make it worse. Possible results of that include forced marriage to the rapist (exists already), or killing the victim.

      I'm surprised that you don't view most porn as the objectification of women. Saddened too that you didn't know what I was implying.

      I have no clue what this discussion has to do with porn. But for that matter, women look at porn as well, you know.

    45. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      I think Baloroth was trying to indicate that it's a kind of "teach a man to fish..." situation. Instead of telling people, "hey, just slap this thing on your dong and fuck until the odds catch up with you", it may be better to tell them why they shouldn't be humping anything that moves.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    46. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      10 points :)

    47. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      No, the Pope dropped the ban on condoms about a year ago.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html

      Now if there are still crazy people out there insisting on it, well, it's not an official stance.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    48. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd that it takes a death threat to get people to use condoms? Condoms take the animal unbridled instinct feeling out of sex, which makes it less fun. The fun in sex is to a large extent due to the fact that it's on kernel code level. The moment you have to escape from kernel code into userland, you lose the feeling of... lack of control :) The point of fornication (which sex with a condom definitely attempts to be) is the pleasure you get out of letting your most basic programming take over.

      If you are not careful, you will spawn child processes.

    49. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Nope, not really. See the clarification they posted the next day.

      Apparently condoms are acceptable to reduce the risk of infection, but still not acceptable for contraception. How that is supposed to work, I have no clue, since both things go together.

      And apparently only male prostitutes should use them. I guess the point of that if you're already going to sin by prostituting yourself, it's somewhat of an improvement to use a condom and avoid spreading illness. But that's a very narrow thing, and in no way looks like an approval to me.

    50. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ewwwww. There is usually one or two of these people.

    51. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Odd stuff, just because we got cure for food poisoning doesn't mean people started eating rotten food on purpose."

      That's an odd comparison. Sex with a condom is a far cry from a natural full contact experience. Not even in the same realm of pleasure. I'd hardly call it rotten fruit.

      Ideally we'd have a male version of the pill and complete STD eradication so we could all have indiscriminate sex without condoms.

    52. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by shaitand · · Score: 1

      As if there is something wrong with "sleeping around" its sex, its fun and with birth control and without deadly STD's a perfectly harmless recreational activity that we could hopefully all enjoy in a regular and carefree way.

    53. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "If you have sex with one person (and only one person), and they do the same for their entire life, it's nigh on impossible to get an STD."

      If anyone, anywhere, had EVER done that we might have a chance of knowing. Here in the real world nobody makes it through their teens maintaining that standard let alone their twenties. Of course there are quite a few militant members of said religions who LIE about this and more who lie about once they get married.

      Monogamy isn't human nature and never will be. We aren't meant to have a single partner or mate for life. No imaginary sky fairy can change that.

    54. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Err. Missed that 2nd part.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    55. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "it may be better to tell them why they shouldn't be humping anything that moves"

      The only reasons being babies and std's. Babies are generally avoidable (although it is perfectly possible to formulate a male pill and it should be done) and if this works the deadly STD's will be avoidable.

      Sex in and of itself is harmless and fun and should be enjoyed by all regularly anytime we feel the urge.

    56. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is the most close-minded idea I have ever heard, if the missionaries are effectively convincing a population that condoms are wrong and for procreation only, then that same population wouldnt be promiscuous and/or rape virgins to cure themselves... the conviction that condoms are wrong go hand in hand with abstinence until marriage... dont down other's ideas to provide solice to yourself for doing as you please... Matthew 7:3-5, read it

    57. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Agreed, on all counts.

      With the addendum that there is nothing wrong with a man looking at a woman as a sex object or a woman looking at a man as such. That IS the reason there are two genders after all.

      When a man is looking at a woman he is looking at a sex object. The rest of the time he is just looking at another person and gender has no relevance or consideration. For men those times are 5 out of every 6 seconds a clear majority! For women the frequency (often) differs due to biology but the concept is the same.

    58. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proof of this is meat and especially sea-food. We know eating meat increases the risk of cancer (probably the most significant thing after tobacco), and increases the spread of transgenic viruses, but most of us do it anyway, because it tastes better.

  10. Re:And what about the African population control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at it another way... A huge number of African prostitute immigrants... Cheap, efficient and no more risk...

  11. Wooo! by mustPushCart · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm off to the whorehouses!

    1. Re:Wooo! by travisb828 · · Score: 1

      you still have herpes and hepatitis

    2. Re:Wooo! by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      So do the whores :)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
  12. Only one to protect yourself by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Abstinence. Don't be tempted by sex unless you are 100% absolutely sure. I would suggest waiting until marriage.

    1. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Haedrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Laugh all you like, but if people actually took that advice a few years ago we wouldn't have AIDS anymore.

      That and "Don't share needles".

    2. Re:Only one to protect yourself by seven+of+five · · Score: 2

      What about those folks that can't get married?

    3. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would result in many sexually unhappy people who have just committed their life to (married) a person that does not satisfy them, or has bad sexual performance. It's a good idea to try things (safely) and figure out what you like before you commit to something.

    4. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Why do you think marriage would protect you from getting AIDS? Or are you implying that people with AIDS shouldn't be allowed to marry?

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    5. Re:Only one to protect yourself by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Those folks typically die before they reach adulthood. If you can get yourself laid, then you can get yourself married. It's not like it's that hard to find somebody that is as desperate as the person who hypothetically isn't ever going to marry because they can't.

      The only major exception I can think of is where the law prohibits marriage and those folks usually end up partnering up for life without the documents.

    6. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Sasayaki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Abstinence is the worst of all the safe-sex choices.

      The best way to describe it is, "It is 100% effective, when used correctly. When not used correctly it is 0% effective, and among females and males between 14-25 it has a very high failure rate."

      How many non-Slashdot users do you know that are 25 years old and never had sex?

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    7. Re:Only one to protect yourself by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This only works if:
      1. You can actually stick to it, including those hormone-addled teenage years.
      2. Your spouse (spouses, if you divorce and remarry) managed it as well.
      3. You manage to avoid other means of infection. Rape, accidential exposure to blood.

      It's also rather untidy, having to alter your life in order to avoid disease. Much tidier to simply remove the disease through science.

    8. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good advice, also, go fuck yourself! It's safe!

    9. Re:Only one to protect yourself by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      Why do you think marriage would protect you from getting AIDS?

      Because abstinence is always effective.

    10. Re:Only one to protect yourself by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

      The problem with this advice – and pretty much every other "just say no" solution to a social or medical problem – is that it ignores human nature... and the empirically documented fact that it simply doesn't work. Some people inevitably will have unprotected sex, will share needles, and will do everything else that they're told not to do. A "solution" that ignores this fact is one that is not 100% effective.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    11. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Deathly809 · · Score: 0

      Is marriage code word for tonight?

      --
      I Pong
    12. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      The notion is similar to what Lord Monckton proposed, which was rounding up all the HIV+ people and putting them in internment camps. Which would work, except be (1) morally repungent [means never justifies the ends because the means is never 100% effective] and (2) assumes you'd actually be able to find 100% of HIV positive people.

    13. Re:Only one to protect yourself by bryanp · · Score: 1

      What about those folks that can't get married?

      In this context it doesn't matter. If you are in a faithful monogamous relationship then you're okay. If you aren't then the problem (and solution) is the same no matter your gender, orientation or marital status.

      --
      "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    14. Re:Only one to protect yourself by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      The only major exception I can think of is where the law prohibits marriage and those folks usually end up partnering up for life without the documents.

      Not necessarily. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion, but a marriage contract does have an effect on the likelihood of a couple staying together.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    15. Re:Only one to protect yourself by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      but a marriage contract does have an effect on the likelihood of a couple staying together.

      Not necessarily. Kids do. And unfortunately, those who are not allowed to marry can't have their own kids, and aren't allowed to adopt kids.

    16. Re:Only one to protect yourself by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      I don't like that bit about the means justifying the end. Sometimes it does. A famous example would be Typhoid Mary. Even after she was found to be a asymptomatic carrier, she reacted with complete denial - continuing to work as a cook, leaving a trail of death in her wake, yet never accepting that she was the cause. After all attempts to convince her of the danger she posed failed, forced quarantine was just the only option left - if she had been allowed to keep her freedom, she would have without doubt have unintentionally killed many more people.

      Quarentine wouldn't have worked on HIV anyway. The disease was first identified in the US, but had it's origin in Africa. By the time it was identified, it was already too late to contain.

    17. Re:Only one to protect yourself by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Why do you think marriage would protect you from getting AIDS?

      Because he doesn't believe in adultery, divorce or premarital sex.

    18. Re:Only one to protect yourself by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Moreover, if you need to fiddle around too much, the rod may have become limp again before you've got it on, spoling all the fun...

    19. Re:Only one to protect yourself by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Marriage isn't a magical barrier. It's the monogamy that comes along with marriage that protects you. A married man who visits the red light district every weekend is probably gonna catch something nasty. A gay man who can't marry, but only has sex with a few partners before settling down with one is likely going to be safe.

    20. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correlation... causation... come on, we can all sing along now and knock down obvious BS like this right?

    21. Re:Only one to protect yourself by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Best advice that seems to work in Africa is similar, ABC. Abstinence Before marriage, Condom if you can't resist. Drastically reduced new cases of AIDS in the countries that used it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Quarentine wouldn't have worked on HIV anyway. The disease was first identified in the US, but had it's origin in Africa. By the time it was identified, it was already too late to contain.

      Don't be so sure. Cuba implemented rigorous testing and quarantine early on quite successfully. They have since abandoned it and rates are on the rise.

    23. Re:Only one to protect yourself by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Laugh all you like, but if people actually took that advice a few years ago we wouldn't have AIDS anymore.

      We'd also have a lot of rather awkward wedding nights. "Does it go here?" "Is it supposed to leak like that? Are you broken?" "I'm not sure, but I think that might be the wrong spot to put that." "Well that didn't seem to go on very long now did it?"

    24. Re:Only one to protect yourself by walkerp1 · · Score: 1

      Abstinence is an excellent way to protect yourself from STDs. For the recalcitrants, there is a backup behavioral modification system known as natural selection.

    25. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      Hey if other 'more primitive' animals figured it out, it really can't be that hard.

    26. Re:Only one to protect yourself by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      I am surprised this is modded funny, it is ridiculous actually.
      Condoms are only like 97% effective, so while they reduce the chance you are still even likely to get a disease if you constantly have sex with a carrier.
      It is up to the individual but unless you have quite a lot of evidence that someone is not a infected with a disease when you have sex with them even if you use a condom you are taking a chance.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    27. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's... 100% backwards. If i had sex with a hundred women (yeah, i'm on slashdot, i wish) got AIDS and died, but that sex resulted in a half dozen kids then natural selection would favor me a hell of a lot more than someone who practiced complete abstinence.

      Natural selection only "cares" (yes, i'm anthropomorphizing it, get over it) if you have kids and how many. It doesn't give a damn if you survive the process or not.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    28. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope your daughters end up with some terrible STD. Perhaps a combo of them, maybe genital herpes, aids and perhaps syphilis. From her rapist at that.

    29. Re:Only one to protect yourself by walkerp1 · · Score: 1

      Having children isn't the end-all. How many of them die from complications arising from the STDs? What are the socioeconomic ramifications of the disease and how do they reflect upon any surviving children? How will social stigmas affect copulation opportunities? These and other feedback mechanisms cannot be marginalized by hyperbole.

    30. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [apocalyptic growl of contempt] Nice try hiding behind the fig leaf word "Some". This man sounds not only like a Christian, but a CALVINIST!

      To arms, ye educated, enlightened and cosmopolitans!
      KILL HIM!! LEST THE REGENTS OF YOUR ALMAE MATRES REVOKE THE PLAQUES ON THINE WALLS!!

    31. Re:Only one to protect yourself by pipelayerification · · Score: 1

      Really like the "non-Slashdot" caveat. Very funny :)

    32. Re:Only one to protect yourself by ari_j · · Score: 1

      The solution is 100% effective for those who utilize it. Your rationale applies equally to a vaccine: It is less than 100% effective for the people who do not receive it. I would certainly question which empirical documentation you can point to that shows that abstinence from both unprotected sex and shared needles "simply doesn't work" in this context.

      In short, you should have stopped with the point that the abstinence argument ignores human nature. But then again, if it were human nature to abstain from all risky behavior then we wouldn't be having this conversation and there would be no abstinence argument for the simple reason that there would be nothing to argue about.

      Does abstinence work? Yes, with absolute effectiveness for those who choose it. Are all people capable of sticking to that choice even if they are rationally capable of making it? Of course not. But that does not mean abstinence doesn't work. It just means that people suck at behaving rationally, which is simply not news.

    33. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ends justify the means," not the other way around. It's relevant. Saying "the means justify the ends" is saying "putting people in internment camps justifies eliminating HIV," which makes the speaker sound like a raving psychotic.

    34. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Pele24 · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you saying that if I married someone with HIV that I wouldn't get HIV??? If only I had known!!!

    35. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right, and I'm sure rape victims would all totally agree they were completely at fault.

    36. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [apocalyptic growl of venomous contempt] Dare this human debris ascribe morality to the workings of nature? Dare this hydroxyapatite-studded kertatin-framed carbonic slimebag invoke Natural Law? He is worst than the Calvinist!

      SCIENCE DAMN THAT REPROBATE!!!

      BBBBBBBBBBZHHHHHHHHH-SCRAAAK_K!!!

      After the poster was reduced to a glowing pile of powdered anhydrous salts and a diffuse plume of water vapour, carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and trace elements, for a short while, all was right with the world.

    37. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's BS. Abstinence is not always effective in preventing HIV spread because sex is not the only means of contracting it.

      You can get HIV from a blood transfusion, organ transplant, visit to your dentist, etc. While there may be safeguards in place for these things, you used the word always, which is 100% wrong.

    38. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A state of legal joining, be it marriage, domestic partnership, common law marriage, what-have-you, has absolutely nothing to do with how viruses are transmitted or how they are spread from one person to another.

      Yes, by not having intercourse, it is highly unlikely that any type of disease, like AIDS, Herpes, Chylamydia, (splg?), or other types of illnesses spread through sexual contact, would show up in a person who abstained from them.

      What I want to point out here, is that 'waiting for marriage' has nothing to do with abstinence. If you abstain, you abstain. The aspect of the legal joining of one to another is an entirely separate element, varies by societal values and 'norms,' and is being consistently challenged--and in some cases, changed or added to--by the newer generations of people within that society.

      Abstinence-only educational programs have been shown to work about as effectively as so-called 'homosexual behavior modification,' which was, to me, a sham from the start. Comprehensive educational programs, an atmosphere of openness and non-fear, and the acceptance of worth of those whose relationship patterns might be different from our own, and freely discussing these things with each other, has been shown to provide the most consistent, life-affirming, longest-lasting, positive results.

      Love wins out in the end. Real love, without religious or bigotry-laden fear mongering.

    39. Re:Only one to protect yourself by khallow · · Score: 1

      How many non-Slashdot users do you know that are 25 years old and never had sex?

      Well, there you go. It won't work, if you don't properly implement it.

    40. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If more than 2 of those children survive he will be over-represented. And if those children end up in a lower class, then they will be even more likely to have an above average number of children themselves.

    41. Re:Only one to protect yourself by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Marriage is an outdated notion driven by that system of control known as "religion". If you need some document and a ceremony in front of all your friends (read as: witnesses) in order to make a long-term committment to your significant other, then I pity you. Otherwise the only legitimate (pun intended) reason for "marriage" was becaue of any offspring resulting from the union, but that too is now an obsolete notion as there are other legal mechanisms available to recognize them as your heirs.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    42. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may also result in the raising of goats, subjugating women, and the general adoption of a late antiquity lifestyle.

      Prove otherwise.

    43. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      No, but you'll catch it and die, and that'll be the end of it.

      Unless you remarry, then there will be a few more people - but the amounts would be small enough that it won't matter - and anyway it'll be clear that HIV is picking out the family by then.

    44. Re:Only one to protect yourself by IICV · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tell that to Isaac Asimov, who died due to AIDS caused by a blood transfusion.

    45. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [BINK!] What's thith Pink Triangle icon that jutht appeared in my Thythem Tray? oo00OOOO00ooooh, it mutht be that new tranthport protocol under IPv6: Lambda Interpolated Thpeech Protocol (LISP). Fabulouth! Fabulouth!

      Good thing my version of Linux is CCR5Delta32 running Cholesterol Free.

    46. Re:Only one to protect yourself by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Engaging in high-risk behavior is stupid. Just say no to crossing the highway at rush hour. Just say no to flying on Third World airlines with spotty safety records. Just say no to drinking household chemicals.

      AIDS isn't like any other disease. You can catch pneumonia or develop cancer through no fault of your own. Contracting HIV requires that you engage in very specific behaviors that are well-known to cause disease. In 2009, 41,769 people in America were diagnosed with HIV through sexual contact or drug use: in other words, being stupid. 76 got it from hemophilia, blood transfusion, or perinatal exposure: the "no fault of their own" disease cause. You do the math.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    47. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, hey, hey, I am a slashdot user (posting anonymously for reasons that will become apparent shortly) and I lost my virginity at 24. See? Slashdot users get laid too! (also oktoberfest is a great way to pick up Asian women for some reason...)

    48. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is solely because this one seek to be his own object of worship.

      At the end of the day, at least this one was true the to his plaque(s) on the wall.

    49. Re:Only one to protect yourself by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      What if a woman gets raped by a man carrying HIV? What if you get in contact with an HIV-infected needle by accident?

    50. Re:Only one to protect yourself by ari_j · · Score: 1

      What point are you trying to make? The latter only occurs with any statistical significance in TV and movies and neither of your examples has any bearing on the discussion whatsoever. Of all the safe-sex methods available, which of them do you recommend rape victims employ?

    51. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best way to describe it is, "It is 100% effective, when used correctly. When not used correctly it is 0% effective, and among females and males between 14-25 it has a very high failure rate."

      Seriously. When I was 17, I got my 19 year old girlfriend pregnant through sumata. It's one thing to get a girl pregnant when you're having sex. But when you haven't even properly had sex yet? Thanks, God.

      (More seriously, though, thanks, God, my little girl is amazing)

    52. Re:Only one to protect yourself by modecx · · Score: 1

      Of all the safe-sex methods available, which of them do you recommend rape victims employ?

      I recommend a having a concealed weapon, the know how and the unforgiving will to use it when the situation demands. Abstinence is the one and only true safe-sex method, after all.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    53. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abstinence. Don't be tempted by sex unless you are 100% absolutely sure. I would suggest waiting until marriage.

      But even in marriage your wife could be cheating on you and you would not find out until it is too late! There is no such thing as 100%!

    54. Re:Only one to protect yourself by leromarinvit · · Score: 1

      So that's your ingenious business model!

      1. Produce adult film
      2. Preach abstinence
      3. Profit!

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    55. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, I think condoms make the whole process much tidier (at least the cleanup).

      That's something where you have to alter your life in order to avoid disease. I have to go out, purchase them, be proactive in putting them on before even 'heavy petting', ensure that nothing slips or rips, and then be very cautious removing them.

      Continue with working to eliminate the disease, but don't toss out a tool from your kit of preventative options just because some religious nuts have latched onto it as the 'only' way.

    56. Re:Only one to protect yourself by microbee · · Score: 1

      Yes, this advice is as stupid as "don't click on links in unsolicited emails".

    57. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Khyber · · Score: 1

      That much sex would likely mean you infected everyone else with HIV, and those kids wouldn't survive to reproduce because they'd have no immune system, either.

      So, no, natural selection would not even favor you. In fact, it would laugh in your face while it stomped on your nuts.

      There's a chance you'd have the kids before having sex with that one infected person. Not a good one, though.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    58. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Bengie · · Score: 1

      "Abstinence" is good to teach because it is sound advice, but *most* of the time, it doesn't work or just postpones it a bit.

      If this was a perfect world, then no one would have to worry about wars/poverty/etc. Alas, people are human, and society has to pay for the mistakes of others.
      Anyone who thinks the general population will remain abstinate, is naive(willful ignorance). Any policies based around these as core ideas will just cause more harm than good. "Abstinence" can augment other ideas, but it should never be a "core" idea, except for religious reasons.

    59. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Nyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Laugh all you like, but if people actually took that advice a few years ago we wouldn't have AIDS anymore.

      That and "Don't share needles".

      Spoken like a person who lives in a glass bubble.

      We are sexual people. We don't just "turn sex off", that is not how we work.

      Instead of teaching Abstinence, we should of been teaching about proper sex health, birth control, and protection, instead of just "hoping" people will not have sex. Because people do NOT stop having sex, no matter how much you ask them not to. Can you grasp that simple concept? The religious freaks haven't.

      As for sharing needles, you once again, don't know shit.

      Why did people share needles? Because they were so fucking hard to get. Until the last 10 or so years where they have had "Needle Exchanges" and pharmacies adopting of letting anyone buy needles, it was very hard and expensive to get clean works. And when your a junkie, your money goes to your dope, not to making sure you have clean works.

      Our policies help made these problems, not the people who were stuck because of the policies.

      That fact that you are currently 4 Insightful only shows how stupid most people are about these matters. It's easy to blame others, but the blame lies with all of us for not taking care of the less fortunate in our community, not at them because they have problems that we prefer to ignore.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    60. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Natural selection only "cares" (yes, i'm anthropomorphizing it, get over it) if you have kids and how many. It doesn't give a damn if you survive the process or not.

      Not completely true. Part of the reason for monogamous relationships is the protection and support it offers. That's why rich men are popular with the ladies. At the lowest level it's because that person can offer substantial for their offspring.

      Example: Poor promiscuous dude might have 10 kids that die in gang fights, drive-by's, meth lab explosions, drug overdose, etc. Or his kids end up with equally disadvantaged women that miscarry due to drug use, physical abuse or whatever etc. Versus rich monogamous dude with 2.5 kids that are all healthy and survive to produce 2.5 kids themselves that all survive.

      Yeah, in real life it doesn't work so cleanly but there are advantages to having both a father and mother to create a fruitful environment for their kids.

    61. Re:Only one to protect yourself by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the married man's monogamous wife will also get AIDS. Probably more likely than if she were not married since she won't be using condoms.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    62. Re:Only one to protect yourself by matunos · · Score: 1

      Indeed. If you're having sex with someone, be safe and practice abstinence at the last moment, and pull out.

      It's the only safe way to do it.

    63. Re:Only one to protect yourself by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      You drop the condom only after a negative test.

    64. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't going to lead to as high numbers as you might expect. Remember the context: HIV and the poor. In other words, they're mingling with partners in the same socioeconomic class and none of them can afford the (expensive!) medical care for treating HIV. A woman with untreated HIV isn't going to have all that many more children (and some of the children may be born with it). That slice of the population isn't going to see much growth overall; and for the few individuals who personally have more than two surviving children, those children are stuck in the same negative situation themselves.

      (Basically: when considering natural selection and all that, you need to look at multiple generations and large groups)

    65. Re:Only one to protect yourself by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      to create a fruitful environment for their kids.

      ... but don't let that environment be too fruitful. You also want grandkids after all...

    66. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying slashdot is a cure for AIDS?

    67. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony of someone with a username "DNS-and-BIND" saying "Engaging in high-risk behavior is stupid"... priceless.

    68. Re:Only one to protect yourself by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      There are countless studies which show that telling people to "just say no" has a lousy success rate. Telling people to take multiple risk-reduction measures -- a) say no, b) use condoms, c) limit the number of sex partners you have, d) get tested and take additional precautions if you're HIV+, e) et cetera -- has a much higher success rate, because they are more likely to actually do items b) and later, and collectively they are more effective for the larger population than just option a).

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    69. Re:Only one to protect yourself by lennier · · Score: 1

      You might laugh, but that's exactly what happened a few generations ago, and yet here we are. I guess they managed to figure it out? Are you saying we're so much dumber than our grandparents that we've lost touch with our basic instincts and need extensive pre-match practice? I mean, really?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    70. Re:Only one to protect yourself by tverbeek · · Score: 2

      You can get HIV without engaging in high-risk behavior. Just ask any woman who contracted the virus from monogamous sex with her husband... who was secretly having unsafe sex with other people.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    71. Re:Only one to protect yourself by sznupi · · Score: 1
      Natural selection doesn't "care" much about the dynamics of one generation, how many kids you will have. It's a blink of an eye for it.

      Plus, even having one child possibly puts you ahead of majority of males (if the child is a girl), and outside (ahead) of what is possibly the largest group of males:

      Dr Balaresque told BBC News: "The variance of reproductive success between males and females is completely different. If you look at a population, even now, most of the females have children, which is absolutely not the case for males.

      "We estimate that about 40% of males do not leave any descendents. This means that each generation, you are losing the traces of 40% of males in that generation. The turnover for males is much higher than it is for females."

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8467623.stm

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    72. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Worth reading: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db46.pdf

      Basic conclusion: in every US state with abstinence-only sex education, teen pregnancy rates are far higher then the national average.

    73. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Daetrin · · Score: 2

      Yes, but you can't just dismiss the fact that people who have lots of unprotected sex tend to have more kids than those who practice abstinence. Abstinence is great for protecting yourself as an individual, but you can't just assume that natural selection is going to favor that strategy too.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    74. Re:Only one to protect yourself by sjames · · Score: 1

      Funny thing about those sorts of confinement though, they don't tend to get confined to a nice place that acknowledges that they are making a sacrifice for the good of all, they tend to get confined to a dump that says we'll acknowledge that you're not actually a disgusting sub-human, but only to the extent that public protest says we have to.

      That might explain the general reluctance.

    75. Re:Only one to protect yourself by walkerp1 · · Score: 1

      Natural selection will have a much greater impact once infection rate reaches a certain critical mass for each particular STD. Until that time, or until the feedback trims the population back below the threshold, I expect you are quite right.

    76. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not the transmission rate of HIV is actually pretty low as long as blood isn't involved. Not every instance of male/female intercourse, in fact not even most, is going to result in an infection. Furthermore, even if the mother does end up catching it there's till only a 25% chance the kid will get it as well, and that's if absolutely no precautions are taken. Take a look at the odds.

      Of course this isn't saying that it isn't something people should worry about, low odds to catch but high odds to kill you is still something to worry about, but even with AIDS in the picture having lots of unprotected sex and thus lots of kids can still be a successful evolutionary strategy.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    77. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abstinences works in africa ??? Your joking right ?
      Tell that to the married women in africa who get HIV / AIDS from their husbands AFTER they are married. Especially the catholic ones !!
      Actually all the evidence is promoting ABC is a terrible disaster. (there was a great USA website with stats on that called what works - Bush took it down to appease the christian right because they didnt like the facts that contradicted their beliefs but it actually showed what things had be funded and what had been successful and what hadn't Abstinence was very unsuccesful as a social program and then came in with a huge range of problems such as STDs, unmarried mothers, family breakdowns etc) Condoms are great - if used. But even then - they can break. Recently came across a case where a number of condoms were found with the tops torn off. Suspect its not unique either across africa. So there are some people out there (we think) who thought they were being safe - and doing the right thing - and werent.

        There are drugs which are very effective treatments - if people can get them BUT
          Not every one can get them, They are expensive unless you live in a civilised country with universal healthcare and they dont work for every one.
      For some people they dont work - you dont see them - they die
        For some people - they are allergic to the newer drugs - and have to go on the older ones - which are nasty

        and even on the newer ones - there are things like Dementia etc.

    78. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because the solution to all the diseases of the world is to take a pill. Which pharmacy conglomerate do you work for again?

    79. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Trogre · · Score: 1

      So fucking what? Some people will commit murder but we for some reason still teach our kids not to do it.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    80. Re:Only one to protect yourself by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      Having children isn't the end-all. How many of them die from complications arising from the STDs? What are the socioeconomic ramifications of the disease and how do they reflect upon any surviving children? How will social stigmas affect copulation opportunities? These and other feedback mechanisms cannot be marginalized by hyperbole.

      Really? The GP points out why you were wrong about natural selection, and all you can do is accuse him of engaging in hyperbole, while piling on with even more rhetoric? Let's cut through the haze. Natural selection doesn't give a rat's ass about the economics or social environment in which it operates. It simply ensures, given enough time to operate, that only those strategies will be selected for that enable organisms to successfully reproduce. Abstinence as a reproductive strategy is obviously a non-starter. And abstinence would not protect people who caught AIDS from blood transfusions, like tennis pro Arthur Ashe, or author Isaac Asimov. But never mind that -- abstinence, especially for males, just isn't part of the genetic equation. Here's something to chew on, while you are contemplating your copulation opportunities. Research into DNA shows that we are descended from males who had multiple female partners. Rape, slavery, harems -- use whatever socially ramified term you would like -- these are part of our civilization, and unless something happens to render these strategies impotent (I use the term deliberately) you can be certain they always will be. You can't argue with reproductive success, dude -- that is what natural selection is all about.

    81. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am absolutely sure that I am tempted by sex.

      I absolutely think that waiting until marriage is a 100% bad idea.

    82. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Trogre · · Score: 1

      We are sexual people. We don't just "turn sex off", that is not how we work.

      Nonsense. No one, except in unfortunate brutal circumstances, is ever compelled to have sex. You always have the choice, no matter what your genitals are telling you. The whole "sexual being" argument was made up to justify and in a sense create a culture of promiscuity with very few boundaries.

      Again, you can choose to do the right thing.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    83. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Okay. Oh wait I can't because he's dead.

      WP tells me that between 5% and 10% of HIV cases are though to be caused by blood transfusions. Now please consider, of those 5 to 10 percent, how many are likely to give blood for others to receive? Because without unprotected sex or needle-sharing that would be the only significant method of propagation. Do you see how this does not make for a sustainable propagation for any pathogen?

      I guess you got modded to +5 for mentioning a Science Fiction author on Slashdot.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    84. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many non-Slashdot users do you know that are 25 years old and never had sex?

      35-year-old Christian single virgin here. It really isn't difficult if you have an ounce of self-control.

    85. Re:Only one to protect yourself by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      You could say the same thing about Safe Sex too.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    86. Re:Only one to protect yourself by sznupi · · Score: 1

      applies equally to a vaccine: It is less than 100% effective for the people who do not receive it

      Not really true, in practise. With mass vaccination campaigns there is a tipping point after which a particular disease is virtually eradicated; after which it is extremely difficult to contract it (one would essentially need to purposefully try very hard), even if you're a freeloader who refuses to be vaccinated (yes, vaccines are a major reason why also people phobic of them can lead quite healthy lives).

      That's the case with practically every disease eradicated via vaccines, since virtually none of them guarantees immunity in the first place, among those who get vaccinated - they simply give it to large portion of the recipients, so there are not enough carriers for the survival of a pathogen.

      BTW, sex is an activity which typically involves two people, and you can't really have control over how earnest the other party is in sticking to some lofty promises.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    87. Re:Only one to protect yourself by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      woosh..... It was a joke. The joke being marriage=abstinence.

    88. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many non-Slashdot users do you know that are 25 years old and never had sex?

      Hey! i know some 25 year olds that never had se... oh... NON-slashdot users...

    89. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many non-Slashdot users do you know that are 25 years old and never had sex?

      Seriously? Is this a joke I'm just not getting?

    90. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably a lot...

    91. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Bengie · · Score: 1

      "What are the socioeconomic ramifications of the disease and how do they reflect upon any surviving children? How will social stigmas affect copulation opportunities? These and other feedback mechanisms cannot be marginalized by hyperbole."

      When you're talking about natural-selection, quantity > quality, so long as the quality of the quantity is just enough to keep it running.

      When you got countries with 30% and higher HIV rates, it's not an issue of having it or not, it's how often you have sex that determines if you have kids to keep your DNA alive.

    92. Re:Only one to protect yourself by walkerp1 · · Score: 1

      "When you got countries with 30% and higher HIV rates" Monogamy and selective partnering could make a crucial difference. Unfortunately, the 30% countries are also the ones without effective screening methods for the masses beyond the most basic. Incidentally, abstinence before marriage is a vital component of that basic screening methodology.

    93. Re:Only one to protect yourself by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Cuba is very regimented, and geographically limited, and isolated, compared to Africa. Also, in Cuba, there's not much incidence of intermingling with the body fluids of monkeys. The cases are not equivalent.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    94. Re:Only one to protect yourself by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Natural selection only "cares" (yes, i'm anthropomorphizing it, get over it) if you have kids and how many.

      Not exactly. Natural selection also "cares" if you don't have kids. It doesn't put a spanner in evolution, it is part of the process. It will just result in less people who tend to abstain in the population, assuming something genetic determines that behaviour to some degree.

      The upshot is that, as a population, nobody will abstain anymore, since the behaviour was bred out, therefore the advice to abstain is ultimately pointless.

      On the positive side, if all priests, bishops, etc. weren't allowed to have kids, we'd end up as a species without the urge to form organised religion.

    95. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      non-Slashdot users

      This is the limiting criteria.

    96. Re:Only one to protect yourself by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Our policies help made these problems, not the people who were stuck because of the policies.

      Those people were stuck because they injected an addictive narcotic into themselves. I don't know of anybody outside of anecdotes regarding forced prostitution who was forcibly injected with heroin. Yes, our policies regarding prohibition were demonstrably ineffective and possibly harmful, but you can't seriously be suggesting that it is our fault that junkies contracted blood-born diseases. The only person they have to blame for that is themselves.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    97. Re:Only one to protect yourself by squizzar · · Score: 1

      So given that you have a choice, and that you consider there to be a right and a wrong choice, and that not everyone will agree with you about that right and wrong choice what are you actually proposing? On an individual level if you choose a course that harms you that is your problem, and I don't really care what people choose to do with their lives and their bodies as long as it doesn't impact on other peoples lives. If you are enacting social policy to control the spread of disease then that's not really relevant. You can remove the people perceived as causing harm (e.g. leper colonies), you can make it simple, easy and almost inexcusable to cause harm (free condoms, free needles, free blood tests etc.) and you can educate people about the consequences of their actions which should lead them to make the right choice. The first option is, for various reasons, far from ideal and certainly not humanitarian even if possible. The third option is the only way to achieve what you propose: that people determine what is best for themselves and act accordingly - but I think the evidence that this approach doesn't work for an awful lot of people is fairly apparent: the prisoners, the drug addicts, the STD sufferers, the drunk drivers, the teenage mothers, the morbidly obese, the smokers and whoever else you can think of that has not made good decisions for themselves (and bear in mind that they may think that they _have_ made good decisions for themselves) all suggest that there is large proportion of people who don't always make those choices. So that leaves the second option: accept human nature and minimize harm through whatever means are available.

      Answers to the following please: What is wrong with promiscuity except for the risk of spreading disease and unwanted pregnancy (since both of those are, without religious interference, effectively solved problems)? Why does the desire to have sex need to be controlled in a way that the desire to eat unhealthily doesn't? Why, if we are willing to accommodate so many of people's different desires, personal choices and individual differences is it such a problem to accommodate their sexual desires, choices and differences?

    98. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      Those folks typically die before they reach adulthood. If you can get yourself laid, then you can get yourself married. It's not like it's that hard to find somebody that is as desperate as the person who hypothetically isn't ever going to marry because they can't.

      The only major exception I can think of is where the law prohibits marriage and those folks usually end up partnering up for life without the documents.

      While technically true, in any kind of reasonable context your statement is wrong in the United States.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    99. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So people are such animals that they can't make a decision not to have sex, therefore we need to "fix" them by giving them condoms? If they can't think logically enough to avoid sex, how will they think logically enough to use condoms? Statistics show that most condoms are applied wrongly anyway, so they do not afford the kind of protection that they are technically capable of. Therefore, condoms just give them a false sense of security, because as you have established, they won't be thinking logically enough to make rational choices.

    100. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Condoms fail for all of these reasons as well. The key difference between condoms and abstinence is that abstinence does not give a false sense of security, inasmuch as condoms applied incorrectly will not grant protection. Moreover, if we continue to act as though the situation in poor countries is OK, where young girls are forced into prostitution, and put a band-aid on the problem by handing them condoms, then the problem will only get worse. The underlying poverty that causes this situation needs to be addressed, and a cultural change needs to occur whereby humans come to actually respect women. Both condoms and abstinence require a significant life change, but abstinence is actually better for society and human relationships.

    101. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Raenex · · Score: 1

      It's not just about Africa. I believe the United States and other countries, if they had the political will, could have implemented the testing and quarantine programs that Cuba did. I'm not saying that's what should have been done, but just that it was feasible.

    102. Re:Only one to protect yourself by cpricejones · · Score: 1

      This is partly true, but with such a long time from birth to adulthood, the parents' survival gives their offspring a much greater chance for survival. Sure there are other people around to care for your 12 kids when you are gone, but if the numbers of cases increased substantially, then this would not be the case. Natural selection would begin to favor those with fewer kids and surviving than more kids and not surviving. You could even test this with a mathematical model if you wanted to (and I bet that it's already in the literature somewhere).

    103. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many non-Slashdot users do you know that are 25 years old and never had sex?

      Sounds like a somber Slashdot Poll.

    104. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      non-Slashdot users

      Haha, touché

    105. Re:Only one to protect yourself by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Abstinence is effective even against rape. It just takes a little more than a spoken "no" to accomplish. I recommend a .40 caliber "no" where it is legal to carry one.

    106. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death by CIA?

    107. Re:Only one to protect yourself by modecx · · Score: 1

      Good ol' universal translator. Unfortunately, its vocabulary is...limited.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    108. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what my wife and I did. Our marriage is wonderful.

    109. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Jackazz · · Score: 1

      I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    110. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha, yeah, you can be as monogomous as you want, when you're spouse forgets their prozac or has had enough and goes out and cheats you can still get something. I know it could never happen to you because "you respect her" and all that jazz, but really it comes down to what most things come down to in life: dumb luck, or perhaps smart luck if you were actually trying.

    111. Re:Only one to protect yourself by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Look at the statistics on cdc.gov. They don't lie, and they don't paint a pretty picture. Honestly, I'm surprised CDC is allowed to publish them at all, due to how politically inconvenient the stats are.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    112. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people weren't lazy and selfish, communism would work.

      People are lazy, selfish, and like to have sex. If you're plan requires those things thing to suddenly stop being true, it's not a good plan.

    113. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i am married

    114. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "Believe it or not the transmission rate of HIV is actually pretty low as long as blood isn't involved"

      What do you think is involved in pregnancy? You fuck the girl while she's on her period, BLEEDING.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    115. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abstinence is the worst of all the safe-sex choices.

      The best way to describe it is, "It is 100% effective, when used correctly. When not used correctly it is 0% effective, and among females and males between 14-25 it has a very high failure rate."

      How many non-Slashdot users do you know that are 25 years old and never had sex?

      I agree that abstinence is one of the worst protections against contracting the HIV virus. Just consider a 24 year old male full of raging hormones and all turned on with a woman. There will be times during this sexual play that abstinence will be the furthest thing of being on either one's mind. So, how could this be at all an effective way to prevent the spreading of aids?
                                                                                          Theodore Hammond

    116. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mama so fat that if she had wheels she'd be a wagon!

    117. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you, I am so happy to see that finally someone has put the cold blunt truth out there.

    118. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laugh all you like, but if people actually took that advice a few years ago we wouldn't have AIDS anymore.

      That and "Don't share needles".

      Abstinence might solve the problem for an individual. But, abstinence education has been proven to be completely ineffective.

      I mean think about it. How many human's genes survived and were passed down by people who were abstinent? Oh, that's right, if you believe in abstinence, you probably don't believe in evolution either. Keep in mind that even the earliest pope had concubines. So, being a big slut is pretty much a Christian tradition, right?

                     

    119. Re:Only one to protect yourself by jafac · · Score: 1

      Abstinence: The "I told you so" cure.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    120. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      What do you think is involved in pregnancy? You fuck the girl while she's on her period, BLEEDING.

      ...you fail biology forever.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    121. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idealist. And hey, that's *totally* ok -- it makes for healthy and optimistic interpersonal and social skills. I'm sure you're an articulate, kind, well-meaning person who pays their taxes and is in general an all around good person.

      But I don't think you've met very many people who aren't very much like you. I think we all love visiting that idyllic world in which the answer to "can't we all just get along?" is an easy "yes", but we don't live in that world.

      The world is what we make it, not what we wish we could make it. It's unfortunate, but is seems as though too many people just don't care about some very important issues... until it's too late.

      The answer to our shortsightedness? Cures. Because prevention just isn't a strong part of our nature. (Whereas reckless reproduction, reckless drug use, et al, *are*).

    122. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I lived in Southern Africa, (for 21 years), this was always promoted as:

      A: Abstinence.
      B: Be Faithful.
      C: Condom.

      Not disagreeing with you, just wanted to provide extra info.

    123. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Menstruation is also called menstrual bleeding, menses, catamenia or a period. The flow of menses normally serves as a sign that a woman has not become pregnant. (However, this cannot be taken as certainty, as a number of factors can cause bleeding during pregnancy; some factors are specific to early pregnancy, and some can cause heavy flow.)[10][11][12]"

      You fail at reading your own fucking links.

      Go back to 3rd grade.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    124. Re:Only one to protect yourself by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Cool story, bro.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    125. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      Oh dear gods, you can lead the ignorant to knowledge but you apparently can't make them read. Either that or you're so ignorant (or just so obstinate) about what you don't know that you're not aware of what you should be reading.

      Name of phase - Average start day - Average end day
      Menstrual phase (Menstruation) - 1 - 4
      Ovulatory phase (Ovulation) - 13 - 16

      Fertile window:
      The most fertile period (the time with the highest likelihood of pregnancy resulting from sexual intercourse) covers the time from some 5 days before until 1-2 days after ovulation.

      So in other words, the period of time (er, so to speak) in which a woman is most fertile is pretty much exactly opposite from when she's menstruating. Which only make sense since menstruation is the process of getting rid of the built up lining of the uterus which is unneeded because the woman did NOT become pregnant. If she's already menstruating it is far too late to make her pregnant for that cycle. There are almost certainly rare exceptions, probably involving very early ovulation for the next cycle or something, but it's far from the way things normally happen.

      What you said: "What do you think is involved in pregnancy? You fuck the girl while she's on her period, BLEEDING."

      Reality: The exact opposite.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    126. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to put it more accurately it is not your genitals telling you to have sex, it is your hormones, your hormones affect your brain and thus your thinking. Sure it is possible to resist this desire, but it is harder for some than others

    127. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Want to know how I know you don't have children? :D

      Quit relying upon wikipedia. People going by that have quite often been getting pregnant, over at the porn shop. QUITE OFTEN, to the point where about 1/10th of the customer base is asking about abortions and saying "I tried reading wikipedia and timing it like that, boy it's wrong."

      Wikipedia is truly a shit source for information.

      My mother says it's full of shit as well - I was conceived during her menstrual cycle, according to doctors at Plano General East.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    128. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Ahh, so you're saying you don't understand probability theory either? Okay, i understand.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    129. Re:Only one to protect yourself by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Moreover, homosexuality in males seems to be linked to greater fertility of their sisters, as some demographic analyses suggest. And it might be actually a decent trade off.
      Sure, it's not quite on the level of the bees or such, when it comes to the efforts put in assuring the survival and reproduction of your kins more than yourself (they have some curious genetics which strongly promotes that, IIRC "sisters" being more related to themselves than to a hypothetical offspring a worker could spawn from its genetic material), but...

      BTW, I doubt it would work like that with priests, bishops, etc. - Catholicism, where it's officially[1] not allowed as it is now, by itself forms a slight majority of Christianity anyway...

      1. Though there are claims of few prominent ex-priests (which does have its own problems of course, The reliability of apostates' testimony) from my place (only 2nd half relevant, from the quote) that the vast majority of priests engages in sex in full meaning of the word, most having some woman on the side (and how many has children?) [2]
      Local historic circumstances of celibate introduction are slightly hilarious - the nuncio of the Vatican first brought the news to the clergy in the predecessor state of Czech Republic, they calmly accepted it and... continued doing what every man needs, just relatively secretly. The following visit of the nuncio in then-Poland didn't go so smooth - apparently, he barely escaped with his life :P (of course, after some grumbling the ~polish clergy also officially accepted the new rules; and also mostly continued having "wife" on the side)

      2. The other things is, the difference between "vast majority" and "most" in such descriptions probably comes from... disproportionally high share of homosexuals. I seem to notice, here and there / through cracks, a view that religious life is good for such men - because it will ~"help them not to sin" (of course in reality, it seems like it might just as readily result in occasional - harmful to others - deviations, ultimately)
      My buddy, who was in a monastery, claims that at least 1/3rd of the brethren at that particular monastery were gay, so much higher than in general population (coincidentally, he is also gay; but that wasn't the reason he remained only for probationary period - it seems that Catholic Church still has some reservations against epileptics in their ranks...). At least with monasteries it can be seen as a fairly good "solution" - them probably having not too bad of a life & maybe decent amount of fun, overall :P (vs. a comparatively "isolated" priest in typical parish, forced to try suppressing it all)
      Which, again, might promote the fertility of their sisters... (specially with families being often on the larger side)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    130. Re:Only one to protect yourself by sznupi · · Score: 1

      The 30% countries tend to have greater emphasis on "traditional values" or hold of religious movements on the population; movements which incidentally do push for "monogamy and selective partnering" or "abstinence before marriage" - while even actively discouraging methods which do take into account human nature. Ultimately, it's a dazzled approach which just doesn't work.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    131. Re:Only one to protect yourself by sznupi · · Score: 1

      From the dynamics of rape-infested areas, it seems such mostly just adds lots more brutality to ~all rapes (that's the real world for you, can't run away from it)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    132. Re:Only one to protect yourself by walkerp1 · · Score: 1

      Top 5 2009 Estimates, Citation, of the percentage of adults (aged 15-49) living with HIV/AIDS followed by a news bit lending no credence to any claim of traditional values as we define them.

      25.90 - Swaziland - 23 August 2005, Swazi girls celebrate as king lifts ban on sex for under-18s - Citation
      24.80 - Botswana - 1 December 2010, Botswana mulls legalizing prostitution to fight HIV - Citation
      23.60 - Lesotho - July 20, 2004, in Lesotho as in much of sub-Saharan Africa, early sex is the norm. - Citation
      17.80 - South Africa - 9 October 2011, 30% of people would use condoms for their first coital sex versus 4% for oral sex - Citation
      14.30 - Zimbabwe - 12 June 2009, girls as young as 12 to sell their bodies for as little as a packet of biscuits - Citation

      Not too sure about those traditional values. It just looks like the dazzled approach isn't being worked.

  13. Re:And what about the African population control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a part of the world suffering from defunct infrastructure and defunct society due to tyranny and corrupt rule

    The USA has an AIDS epidemic?

  14. Re:And what about the African population control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Emigration wouldn't solve anything, and the only reason to bring it up is... that's right: racist trolling.

    What the population-booming countries of Africa need to solve that problem is 1) economic development and improved health care (so that there will be less "need" for a couple to over-reproduce) combined with 2) education and availability of effective birth control (so that they can follow through on the option to have fewer children).

    (Furthermore, AIDS is a rather ineffective method of population control. Yes, it has a terrible death toll in much of Africa, but it's not keeping the population from growing, and a vaccine would have little impact on that.)

  15. Give it a month. by idbeholda · · Score: 2

    We won't see or hear about these breakthroughs again because there won't be any "profitable" method of distribution.

    1. Re:Give it a month. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod points, someone, please. This will be buried asap. Drug dealers can't make money on a cure, they need repeat customers.

    2. Re:Give it a month. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and Laetrile / Apricot kernels are a perfect cure and/or preventative for cancer, but The Man keeps it down.

    3. Re:Give it a month. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Ah... yet another conspiracy theorist. Evidence, please. Your notion that the medical industry would not be interested in a cure because of an alleged all-powerful motive of financial gain is wholly unsubstantiated, and loses credibility in the light of diseases which *HAVE* been cured.

      Oh... what's that? You want me to name one? How about several?

      Leprosy, Streptococcus, Pneumonia, Tuberculosis, Scarlet Fever, Malaria, and even most types of skin cancer, if caught early enough.

      Do people still get these diseases and do people still suffer from them? Yes, but treatments and medication are available that can fully cure (not just control or manage) these diseases. Are any of these cures some magic wonder-drug that works instantly and 100% of the time? No... but that is wholly irrelevant to the fact that they exist, and are readily available in industrialized countries.

      Of course, as a conspiracy theorist, I fully expect you to disregard any of what I've said... since that's what conspiracy theorists do - ignore any evidence that might contract their hypothesis.

  16. It's a big deal by mattr · · Score: 2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate

    Can't understand how anybody can post snarky troll crap at all.
    Did you know there are over 30 million people with HIV and 1 million are in the U.S., and it's apparently accelerating maybe?

    These researchers probably deserve the nobel and the medal of honor. Here's hoping that something amazing comes out of this.

    Of course the tangent everyone will want to know about is this cholesterol film around the virus they are disrupting.. and a naive question about whether there is something simple that can be done to reduce this cholesterol and weaken the virus' immune disruption activity, before waiting years for the real thing.

    1. Re:It's a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate

      Can't understand how anybody can post snarky troll crap at all.
      Did you know there are over 30 million people with HIV and 1 million are in the U.S., and it's apparently accelerating maybe?

      These researchers probably deserve the nobel and the medal of honor. Here's hoping that something amazing comes out of this.

      Of course the tangent everyone will want to know about is this cholesterol film around the virus they are disrupting.. and a naive question about whether there is something simple that can be done to reduce this cholesterol and weaken the virus' immune disruption activity, before waiting years for the real thing.

      Or the question of should we be "healing" these people. With the current worlds population and the offspring all these will potentially now produce and the lack of deadly wars to thin numbers, disease seems to be the only thing keeping us from over populating. Once that is gone then what? /only half serious.

    2. Re:It's a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the question of should we be "healing" these people. With the current worlds population and the offspring all these will potentially now produce and the lack of deadly wars to thin numbers, disease seems to be the only thing keeping us from over populating. Once that is gone then what? /only half serious.

      You're kidding, but there will be some who use that argument seriously. So it's worth addressing:

      - Many countries have birth rates below replacement - their population is shrinking. Curing HIV in those countries therefore does not add to overpopulation. Especially when those countries don't have a local overpopulation problem.
      - In many of the countries with the worst HIV infection rates: the birth rate is high because of socioeconomic instability that the disease is making worse. Curing HIV there contributes towards reducing the factors that are causing the high birth rate.
      - In the remaining countries (high birth rate, low HIV rate), the birth rate is due to cultural reasons (which are already changing), and overall growth isn't really being impacted by the HIV rate (look at how low the annual number of deaths are in that wiki chart, compared to the population). Since the presence or absence of HIV is not affecting the growth rate, curing HIV there is still the correct choice.

      That covers everywhere.
      (On an even more serious note: disease barely even dents the global population growth rate (somewhere around 1.2% per year). Even a horrifyingly bad flu the likes of which we haven't seen in a century - one that kills a hundred million people - would only cancel one year's worth of growth. Even if a new one of those hit every single year, the total population would not shrink!).

    3. Re:It's a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, this is potentially a big deal, IF they can make it work, and IF the virus does not mutate around it, with a different form of cholesterol.

      As far as a solution that will happen quickly, this is easy. All the drug companies need to do is to start marketing cholesterol lowering drugs to the virus community. TV spots, aimed directly at viruses, I can see it now.

    4. Re:It's a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually a virus would show up and carry out the job to combat over-population. HIV was helpful to crack down obscene practices.

    5. Re:It's a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a lot of people will condemn it because it does promise a real cure/vaccine down the road. AIDS would have been cured already, except that the social moralists and religious wackos decided it was a hell of a way to scare people out of having sex, and besides, it only affected homosexuals. But then it only affected homosexuals and drug users. And then it only affected homosexuals, drug users and prostitutes. And then....

      Well, you know the history. So a lot of people are going to try to discredit this (and the science behind it) just like they try to discredit the vaccination against HPV, because, like making condoms and birth control available, "it will lead to sex"

      Sigh.

    6. Re:It's a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      statins

  17. wild by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with big pharma out of town, we can get back to out incredible orgies!

    seriously, just strip the cover and it won't work? don't tell me they didn't try that 25 years ago.

  18. What do you think latex referred to? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Informative

    I say several times UNPROTECTED sex. I mention latex explicitly. Was I being that subtle in referring to condoms?

    And the underlying cause in Africa is not sex, it is rape. Mass rape. It is an cultural attitude to women that is getting ever more brutal.

    Read a little about conditions in for instance South Africa before you go all indignant.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:What do you think latex referred to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also said "cure", which was a lie.

    2. Re:What do you think latex referred to? by x_IamSpartacus_x · · Score: 2

      And the underlying cause in Africa is not sex, it is rape. Mass rape. It is an cultural attitude to women that is getting ever more brutal.

      Read a little about conditions in for instance South Africa before you go all indignant.

      Source?
      I live in Mozambique and, while there are definitely higher rape rates than in the USA, they DO NOT account for the HIV rates. I can tell you with certainty that there is a culture of promiscuous sex that runs rampant despite the knowledge of high HIV infection rates. It is not uncommon in the least for a man or a woman to have 10 partners within a month. From my experience (I lived in Botswana for 3 years the highest AIDS rate country in the world before moving here to Mozambique) consensual sex is absolutely the underlying cause for high HIV rates.

  19. Such an awesome crowdsourcing success! by kamelkev · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I thought this was going to be another one of those "wow we have a cure for HIV but xyz" type of articles, but there is so much more to it than that.

    The coolest part about this breakthrough is that it was directly generated by people playing the game "fold it". The game (which I've played in the past) involves turning various little nobules on molecules in order to try to match them up to certain shapes. It's fun and mindless, I had *no idea* that the results were actually being used by scientists working on important problems.

    This is truly crowdsourcing at it's best - check out the first page of the scientific paper for more details, after that it gets pretty bio-nerdy:
    http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/zoran/NSMBfoldit-2011.pdf

    1. Re:Such an awesome crowdsourcing success! by EPAstor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong breakthrough, I'm sorry to say. That one was an analysis of a protein that all retroviruses (including HIV) have - this one is an actual (albeit in vitro) treatment method. This paper is in a completely different direction, and arguably one step further along its path... and no, FoldIt was not involved in this particular breakthrough. Both are cool, but not the same work.

  20. Working at FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember driving through the hazardous materials area in a tug once. I saw a big red vat with skull and crossbones labelled "HIV" in big letters. Fastest U-turn I've ever done.

    1. Re:Working at FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I label all my packages HIV, I've never had one run through with a forklift or drop-kicked into a truck. Works great!

  21. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit by sourcerror · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Africa is both the epicenter for the disease, and is a poverty-stricken continent where people need to have families, and relatively large ones at that, in order to be taken care of in their old age. These features are sufficient to explain the sustained high infection rate without resorting to the racist twaddle you're apparently peddling. "

    Oh boy, you're so full of bullshit.

    "Medical experts have shown a clear association between HIV exposure and coerced sex. Wives who suffer violence if they request condom use or faithfulness are at higher risk of AIDS than unmarried women and girls. That is why defeating the AIDS pandemic requires a second radical proposition: that African women and girls have the right to protection under their own countries' laws.

    Why is this concept radical? Because public justice systems in many AIDS-burdened countries are broken or virtually inaccessible to poor girls and women. Rape and beatings are simply the norm, and deterrence and accountability for these crimes in Africa is as rare as AIDS drugs used to be."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/13/AR2006081300716.html

    "Rape, including child rape, is increasing at shocking rates in South Africa. Sexual violence against children, including the raping of infants, has increased 400% over the past decade (Dempster, 2002). According to a report by BBC news, a female born in South Africa has a greater chance of being raped in her lifetime than learning how to read (Dempster, 2002). When South Africa became a democracy in 1994, there were already 18,801 cases of rape per year, but by 2001 there were 24,892 (Dempster, 2002). Numbers vary by different institutions, but are nevertheless extremely troubling. The Institute of Race Relations found that more than 52,000 rapes were reported in 2000, and 40% of the victims were under age 18 (du Venage, 2002). The University of South Africa reports that 1 million women and children are raped there each year (South Africa: Focus on the Virgin Myth, 2002)."

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/444213
    http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/april/virgin.htm

    Also, big families don't cause rape, you can't catch an infection from a clean partner no matter how many times you have sex.

    1. Re:Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to lay the responsibility where it belongs.. ON the international MALE population. Until we as males speak out against the deplorable disrespect for the females on this planet, we can only expect an ever ending spiral of violence, death, overpopulation and DEATH to humanity. This goes for the developing countries as well as the un and underdeveloped nationals as well. Time to make US foreign aid contingent on male birth control, and developing national policy that respect females through out the world. There will never been any improvement in the health and nutrition issues without this fundamental change in the male attitudes.

  22. What about the developing world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These comments betray a shocking lack of understanding for the reality of AIDS in the developing world. Family units are being wiped out by AIDS, in countries where people don't even understand that it can be transmitted by blood. "Just use a condom and it's no big deal, we don't even really need a cure" is a stupid attitude for America but is downright heartless when you consider the situation in a lot of Africa.

    Kudos to the researchers - a step forward in a test tube is still a step forward.

  23. Re:And what about the African population control? by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Don't worry those truly worthy of the Darwin Award will think any vaccine is a CIA plot to infect them with HIV or cause autism or some silly shit like that. Hell we develop a vaccine for cervical cancer caused by HPV, and people refuse to give it to their kids because of some idea that it encourages premarital sexual activity. While the potential of a HIV vaccine is exciting, we still have measles, rubella, Diptheria and pertussis , so it's unlikely that a HIV vaccine will eliminate HIV.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  24. Kudos to the folks @ Johns Hopkins I say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, hope they're right & can see it through, because I don't know about the rest of you guys, but... it's about time this happened so we can all live better lives & hopefully longer lives for it, free of the fear of contracting this killer... Again - let's hope these guys can follow through on this, minus ANY "I am Legend" type side-effects, & to cure this bogus plague once & for all.

    APK

    P.S.=> AIDS is damned ironic, because the very thing that creates life can kill you because of it... time to get rid of this particular irony I say!

    ... apk

  25. Hundred Dollar Bills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought we already had a cure for AIDS: Injecting $100 bills directly into the blood stream...

  26. Quarantine by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Yep. Quarantine or similar approaches (condoms etc) are actually a pretty good way of dealing with contagious diseases in the macroscale.

    After a while the disease either dies out or evolves to be less harmful.

    Nowadays with the technology we have, many people or communities can remain productive and live not too terrible lives while under quarantine (heck some WoW players wouldn't even notice the difference ;) ).

    If everyone with just a sniffle worked from home and avoided contact with others, the common cold and flu would have to evolve to become near unnoticeable.

    --
    1. Re:Quarantine by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If everyone with just a sniffle worked from home and avoided contact with others, the common cold and flu would have to evolve to become near unnoticeable.

      Flu epidemics are caused by viruses jumping species form birds and pigs to humans. It's a new disease (which has similar symptoms to old ones) each time, thus it doesn't evolve into harmlesnness.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:Quarantine by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If everyone self-quarantined as soon as they detect it in themselves it'll still reduce the spread. Might not even become an epidemic.

      --
    3. Re:Quarantine by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Whereupon you've hit the problem with the idea: a person with HIV is infectious for an immensely long time before they'll detect it in themselves. They are potentially infectious even before any test will reveal them to be HIV positive.

    4. Re:Quarantine by TheLink · · Score: 1

      That's not a problem for most virgin slashdotters who are well quarantined in mom's basement.

      But our genes might die out before the disease does ;).

      --
    5. Re:Quarantine by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, what sort of quality of life can one have without sex? Might as well be dead.

  27. Re:And what about the African population control? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    The same people who pay for every other goddamn forsaken cesspool in the world - the American Taxpayer.

  28. Re:And what about the African population control? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    The current situation is that you end up with migrants coming who have HIV...

    Over population is already a serious problem in some places, and it only fuels the tyranny and corruption... When you have an unsustainable level of population growth causing a shortage of food, people will become increasingly desperate to acquire food by whatever means necessary. They need to curb population growth, not through AIDS but through education and contraception (condoms would also help to reduce the spread of AIDS). Once the population is at a level whereby there are sufficient resources to feed everyone, these countries will be in a far better position to stabilise themselves.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  29. People are still having sex by SteveFoerster · · Score: 2

    "This AIDS thing's not working." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShTjhhYN04Y

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    1. Re:People are still having sex by WCLPeter · · Score: 1

      Thanks for this, I haven't heard this song in years! I've got it on a cassette tape around here somewhere, but I haven't broken out my cassette tapes in years. Hmmm... I wonder what other gems I have in that box under the stairs, I'll have to go check, I just hope my old Milli Vanilli tape is still there! :-D

  30. Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you would like to read the article for yourself [you will need to have a very in-depth knowledge of cellular biology and immunobiology], here is the source:

    Over-activation of plasmacytoid dendritic cell inhibits anti-viral T-cell responses: a model for HIV immunopathogenesis
    Blood, 2011
            * Adriano Boasso,
            * Caroline M Royle,
            * Spyridon Doumazos,
            * Veronica N Aquino,
            * Mara Biasin,
            * Luca Piacentini,
            * Barbara Tavano,
            * Dietmar Fuchs,
            * Francesco Mazzotta,
            * Sergio Lo Caputo,
            * Gene M Shearer,
            * Mario Clerici,
            * and David R Graham
    Sept 19, 2011 print edition

  31. Re:And what about the African population control? by MrNaz · · Score: 2

    Being from South Africa and having worked in health care, I can confidently tell you that the only people who think dumbass shit like "vaccines are a government plot" are "educated" people from first world countries.

    --
    I hate printers.
  32. Re:And what about the African population control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks, different Anonymous Coward. Saved me some typing.

  33. Re:And what about the African population control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is it that AIDS and Africa are mentioned together and somehow nobody has yet to inject (pun intended) "Racism!"?

    Don't you "Honi Soit Que Mal Y Pense" me!

  34. Many substances kill things in the lab. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They also tend to kill the host. This is why you hear about so many great cancer and disease cures, but never see them rolled out to the public.

    I guess, technically, dead means you are no longer sick.

  35. Re:Linux users celebrate! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This fellow won't get anywhere in the entertainment sector of the economy for certain. He won't get a job anywhere that has gays in control or can extort through media malattention, boycotts, and/or violence. What the Mauve Hand wants, the Mauve Hand gets!

  36. Encouraging approach by Animats · · Score: 1

    This is encouraging. This is an approach that's different from most of what's been tried. Also, it works on a feature that the virus has to have. If the virus evolves to not have a cholesterol coating, regular immune system responses will dispose of it. Most of the previous vaccines latched onto some non-critical part of the molecule and, as a result, were specific to some strains of the virus.

    It's a long way from a vaccine, though.

  37. The acceleration of addictiveness by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    "Most people want leaders that act as a substitute for their own super-egos, which lead them personally."

    Interesting thought, but it ignores the acceleration of addictiveness coming from technology and marketing...
    http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  38. Re:And what about the African population control? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Are they ever worried that your medicine might contain bad juju?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7813418.stm

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  39. Re:The future is here, when .... by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    Treatment or Cure, a vaccine suggest a cure, but where is the corporate-welfare in a cure?

    I suspect we will get another lifelong profitable treatment, rather then the miracle life saving cure.

    I am old enough to remember the cures vaccines polio, whooping cough, measles ..., what good government programs did for "The People", but cures are rare today in the age of scary life threatening treatments.

    Look at how many politicians today speak against the HPV vaccine, which IMO is the same as saying more cancer care treatments later in live would be better. To frequently the government works for the corporate-welfare state, not the good of "The People." Even our public education systems are designed and miserly funded for supporting the US corporate-welfare state. I believe public schools can be as good as private schools, but politicians convince a large portion of the poorly educated public that education is broke and too hard to fix.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  40. Re:And what about the African population control? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

    You suffer from delusions of grandeur. The USA most famously is about the meanest country in the world, after only Italy. Most of what is called "foreign aid" is actually military aid particularly to Israel. That's not done out of charity, that's done in order to further your interests.

    The people who end up paying to sort out the problems in the world are mostly Europeans and we look forward to the day the "American Taxpayer" starts paying their share.

    --
    =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  41. I'm confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the link between SVN and TFA?

  42. Re:Hulda Clark by headwes · · Score: 0

    She also claimed that device could cure cancer... until she died of cancer.

  43. Re:Lazy journalism. by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 2

    Yes, AIDS is a Syndrome caused by HIV which is a Virus. Your being a pedant served no purpose other than making an ass of yourself. There is no lazy journalism going on here.

  44. Rule #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone keeps forgetting Rule #1 of Pharmacology.

    A Patient cured is a Customer lost.

  45. The advice is approx. 50% ineffective by sirwired · · Score: 1

    It's a truism that almost all parents tell their kids not to have sex before marriage.

    And most of them failed to heed this advice. Proof: Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is caught by approx. 50% of the sexually active U.S. population at some point in their lives. If significant number people actually practiced lifetime monogamy, it wouldn't be so common.

    1. Re:The advice is approx. 50% ineffective by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      If significant number people actually practiced lifetime monogamy, it wouldn't be so common.

      If the whole world would just adopt Islam and live 100% in accordance to the Koran, then there wouldn't be AIDS or HPV either. Pick any Abrahamic religion and get the same result. The problem isn't that people aren't living up to a particular "code"/morality/ethic, it is that we are biologically hardwired to NOT be 100% monogamous. To expect 100% of the population to "get over" that hardwiring is unrealistic, as you probably know.

      From my perspective, our mobility is the real problem, as diseases that 200+ years ago might have cropped up and died out in a limited population now can spread worldwide rapidly, sexual or otherwise.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  46. Re:And what about the African population control? by budgenator · · Score: 1

    In the US we're pretty good at getting our kids to school, getting them educated is still hit or miss.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  47. Vaccine? by bky1701 · · Score: 1

    This sounds more like it would work at any time, making it not a vaccine, but a cure; which is far, far better.

  48. Don't use it til you can REALLY use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope if they ever do cure it or create a vaccine they don't distribute it to anybody until it's available in sufficient quantity to give it to everyone on the planet and wipe out the disease before it can mutate into something else. What would really suck is if they cure a few thousand people, vaccinate a couple million, then it mutates into something that's even harder to cure because it becomes unreliant on this cholesterol shell.

  49. Perfect vs. typical use by Burning1 · · Score: 1

    Good point. Condoms, the pill, etc... are rated for prevention of pregnancy with perfect use, vs typical use. Condoms are about 99% effective with perfect use, vs. 97% effective with typical use. The pill is 99.9% perfect, vs 99% or so typical use.

    Curious how abstinence ranks with typical use. :)

  50. I'm not a virologist, but... by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

    ...my wife is. I read this and had a few questions, she verified that they were good questions. Questions such as "how do you turn it off in plasmacytoid dendritic cells without...I dunno...dying?" Cholesterol is sortof vital to pretty much everything in the body that is going on. It sounds like they "discovered" that all you have to do is destroy the glycoprotein gp120 and hey! You'll slow the spread of HIV. Alas, you'll also be dead. Point is, as cool as this sounds, it's substantially far off from being useful in an actual living organism.

    1. Re:I'm not a virologist, but... by dAzED1 · · Score: 0

      try re-reading what I wrote.

  51. and marriage is for what? by r00t · · Score: 1

    still full of ridiculous rules like no sex outside of marriage

    Lose that rule, and what exactly is the point of marriage? Really, that rule is kind of the whole point.

    1. Re:and marriage is for what? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Commitment, tax benefits, visitation rights, and an excuse for a lavish party, I suppose.

      Nobody cares about that rule. In civilized countries, sex outside of marriage is not a crime, and even in very religious places the rule gets routinely ignored.

    2. Re:and marriage is for what? by r00t · · Score: 1

      I care. There are two kinds of sex outside of marriage.

      The first is when neither party is married. We call this "fornication". There probably ought to be a $500 fine for this. (to discourage spreading disease, creating bastard children, and falsely claiming love to get sex)

      The second is when at least one party is married to some other person. We call this "adultry". It's pure evil. The punishment should be determined by the wronged person/people, to include stoning if they wish. If allowed to live, the adulterer/adultress should automatically lose divorce battles against any innocent person including future spouses.

    3. Re:and marriage is for what? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, this must be the "love" I heard so much about.

      Fortunately in modern times most people think of such policies as being insane, so your views aren't going to get much traction. Please take the earliest time machine back to the middle ages.

      For the record, here's my take on it:

      There's absolutely nothing wrong with sex when neither participant is married.

      If one is, it should only matter in a divorce proceeding. If both parties are fine with it, there's nothing wrong with it.

      Marriage is a purely legal status and has nothing to do with morality.

    4. Re:and marriage is for what? by r00t · · Score: 1

      There's absolutely nothing wrong with sex when neither participant is married. [...] If both parties are fine with it, there's nothing wrong with it.

      This isn't just about you or some imaginary magic man in the sky. It's about hurting your partner, the child you may create, and any 3rd party that may be a spouse. Spreading hepatitis is not OK, especially when an unknowing 3rd party may be affected. Causing children to grow up in broken homes is not OK. Falsely causing a person to believe you will be faithful is not OK.

      In other words, this is about being responsible and being decent to your fellow human beings.

      BTW, I also think that divorce should be highly restricted and I think that virginity should be valued in both sexes. I'm a tad old-fashioned, despite being an atheist unfit for the middle ages. Strong and stable families are good for humanity.

      Marriage is a purely legal status and has nothing to do with morality.

      I have a bad feeling that you would get married only to please a partner who felt otherwise. If true, you're a sociopath. One of my biggest fears is that one of my children gets fooled by somebody with your attitude. It would be devastating to his/her life and to the lives of his/her children.

  52. If this does work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...who'll own the rights to it?

  53. Feed a fever? by choke · · Score: 2

    So, is stealing the cholesterol from the outer membrane of the virus fall under the definition of starving a cold?

    --
    "No good deed goes unpunished"