Nobel peace laureate claims HIV deliberately created

[heretic888]

You're way off. I'm not saying that anyone should conform to any of my moral beliefs. I think sex is great and my attitude has nothing to do with it. I am advising that people get educated about what causes HIV and AIDS. It is a fact that it has been spread by unsafe sex and sharing needles. There are other ways, too, but the fact remains that AIDS is not like a cold which spreads on its own...it can only be spread via a person's activity, whether that be a bad blood transfusion or something that isn't the recipient's fault, or by something that the recipient does to allow the virus into their body.

*shrugs* May have been a mistake on my part. My bad.

The context in which I quoted you, however, seemed to be in reference to Feisty Mouse's comments on monogamy, premarital sex, and other things.

Again, if this was a mischaracterization on my part, I apologize.

Thank for the history lesson...I always thought it was freedom.

They aren't mutually exclusive. Freedom comes with responsibility, a fact that many people would rather ignore at times.

 

[Xequat]

No problem. I see what you're saying.

They aren't mutually exclusive. Freedom comes with responsibility, a fact that many people would rather ignore at times.

Good point. I just think we are doing something about it already, although in some ways, we are only doing it for money, because a cure for AIDS would mean a lot of money for the one who discovers or invents it.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

"b) by the way, no-one seems ruffled by the fact that a large number of leading scientists, including a number of Nobel Pirze winners, have critiqued the current Administration's misuse and disregard for science, and rejecting the evidence on global climate change."

Sorry, but I don't see how that is even slightly relevant. Maybe you could elaborate a little because to say that Bush is somehow responsible for the spread of AIDS seems unfair and unfounded. I'm sure you have reason for putting that in there, but I don't know what it could be.

I was not saying Bush is responsible for the spread of AIDS - although I think his administration has taken a massive step backwards by only funding educational programs that talk about abstinence, or predominantly abstinence, rather than condom use and distribution.

I was saying that people are getting fired up about what one Nobel laureate said, rightly or wrongly, but I'm saddened to see a lack of people getting fired up about a statement hundreds of prominent scientists, including Nobel laureates, made about another huge problem we're facing.

That's all.

 

[Xequat]

Ah, OK. Thanks for clarifying. Yeah, I pretty much agree with you that the "abstinence-only" crowd is a little unrealistic and narrow-minded.


The other point...so you're saying that people shouldn't be as worried about AIDS as global warming? That probably belongs in a different thred.

 

[raedyn]

in some ways, we are only doing it for money, because a cure for AIDS would mean a lot of money for the one who discovers or invents it.

This is true. Even for those companies that have developed drugs to increase life expectancy and quality of life for those afflicted with the virus, there is considerable cash to be earned. These companies charge a LOT for their drugs. They point to the huge expense of research and development to justify these prices. And it is true that they invest a lot of money into developing new treatments. But these prices make the treatments impossible to the vast majority or people living with the disease. Not too many Africans can shell out the thousands of American dollars for these lifesaving drugs.

What is the apropriate balance between encouraging investment (ie: allowing profit) and addressing a real humanitarian need?

 

[raedyn]

I don't pretend to have the answer to this question, I only think it is worth considering.

 

[Flatlander]

I don't pretend to have the answer to this question, I only think it is worth considering.

Raedyn, welcome to Martial Talk! It's great to see you dive right in to the discussion. Help yourself to the great bounty of information abundant on the forum, and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Enjoy yourself, and happy posting!

 

[Shizen Shigoku]

Just tossin' this out there -

The commonly accepted theory (or possibly still just a hypothesis at this point) is that the HIV first spread to humans from some sort of monkey or ape. For the most part, HIV is a sexually transmitted disease. If you have sexual intercourse with someone that has HIV/AIDS, there is a good chance you will acquire it as well. That person who had it first got it from someone else (likely through sexual contact), and so on down to first cause - someone had sex with a monkey?

Okay, even saying that's possible, or the likely source of the AIDS virus, it doesn't stop there. Where did that monkey/ape get HIV from? Sex with other monkeys/apes? Eventually, if you go back far enough, there has to be the first victim of the virus. Given the radical mutating ability of HIV, it's possible that it first started out as some other sort of virus that affects primates, and over time evolved into something that spreads easily through sexual contact (a useful biological mechanism), and continues to mutate to make it hard to develop immunity or find a vaccine (another useful biological mechanism).

Also, I don't think it's impossible that it was first created by humans as a bio-warfare agent (I just think it's highly unlikely). The fact that the virus is so tough and has a dastardly set of qualities (mutates constantly to resist immunity/vaccine, affects the immune system of its victims directly - weakening it, and spreads through sexual contact), makes it almost too good (from the virus's perspective) to be true. However, I have full faith in evolution's ability to create all sorts of nasty, destructive organisms - humans of course being one of them.

BTW, I once did volunteer work for the Red Cross as a HIV/AIDS peer educator at middle schools and high schools. I'm proud of my opportunity to help educate people on the dangers of the disease, how it is acquired, and how to prevent exposure to it.


It is my view that if it turns out that this disease cannot be defeated by our immune systems or our medicines, the only other option is to win by attrition, isolate the disease to a point where it has no where to spread - this means taking whatever precaution necessary to avoid exposure to viruses sexually, or otherwise. Eventually, and unfortunately, the victims of the disease will all have died, and the virus will die with them.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

The other point...so you're saying that people shouldn't be as worried about AIDS as global warming? That probably belongs in a different thred.

Oh no - just that this is such a hoo-ha because a Nobel laurate said something odd or unpopular. But others are saying other things, and being ignored.

I think both the AIDS epidemic and global climate change are massive crises that no one nation can solve or handle on it's own.

Even for those companies that have developed drugs to increase life expectancy and quality of life for those afflicted with the virus, there is considerable cash to be earned. These companies charge a LOT for their drugs. They point to the huge expense of research and development to justify these prices. And it is true that they invest a lot of money into developing new treatments. But these prices make the treatments impossible to the vast majority or people living with the disease. Not too many Africans can shell out the thousands of American dollars for these lifesaving drugs.

What is the apropriate balance between encouraging investment (ie: allowing profit) and addressing a real humanitarian need?

I think this is when citzens - and governments - can step in and tell companies what they do and don't want to see. Like making generic versions of drugs, thus cheaper. Or having companies be able to write off in taxes for huge drug and education packet contributions to African nations. Ideally, companies don't run our country and tell us what to do - it should be the other way around.

 

[auxprix]

Ideally, companies don't run our country and tell us what to do - it should be the other way around.

Our country runs our companies? Sounds like socialism. Please clarrify.

 

[auxprix]

I don't think she is correct in her assertions, but

a) why should she give back her Nobel Prize? This is exactly why the tenure system is in place - so academics can have views, even highly unpopular views, and be somewhat protected from the political climate of the day. Give back her prize? It was for something else entirely.

The peace prize is a different type of award. It is not earned on intellectual merrit. It is earned on deeds and moving the world towards peace. She may have a past of doing so, but her current actions are uninformed, dangerous, and stupid. Not very fitting of a laureate.

 

[Flatlander]

Our country runs our companies? Sounds like socialism. Please clarrify.

She did, put the quote back in the context of the paragraph. I've boldfaced it for you.

I think this is when citzens - and governments - can step in and tell companies what they do and don't want to see. Like making generic versions of drugs, thus cheaper. Or having companies be able to write off in taxes for huge drug and education packet contributions to African nations. Ideally, companies don't run our country and tell us what to do - it should be the other way around.

Perhaps in another format would be better.

The citizenry is able to exert it's influence through government. The government can legislate the companies.

Of course, I understand that this isn't always the case. I recognize that there are times when companies, in fact, exert their influence over governments, which in turn legislate the people, producing profits for the companies. I don't, however, believe this to be reflective of democratic values.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Our country runs our companies? Sounds like socialism. Please clarrify.

This comment reveals a lack of understanding of economic history.

Companies are granted charters of limited liability and the right to issue common stock because these processes are in the best interests not only of those companies, but of society as a whole -- companies that can grow and compete employ citizens and pay taxes and generate goods and services that we need.

Companies must behave by the laws and regulations set by the people, through their elected officials, just like individual citizens.

When companies behave against the best interests of society, they should be punished, up to and including the revocation of their charters.

 

[auxprix]

This comment reveals a lack of understanding of economic history.

Companies are granted charters of limited liability and the right to issue common stock because these processes are in the best interests not only of those companies, but of society as a whole -- companies that can grow and compete employ citizens and pay taxes and generate goods and services that we need.

Companies must behave by the laws and regulations set by the people, through their elected officials, just like individual citizens.

When companies behave against the best interests of society, they should be punished, up to and including the revocation of their charters.

On the contrary, I have a degree in economics. I just read that statement and asked for clarification, so not to mis-construe what she was saying.

IMO, we can tell companies not to partake in activities that are outright harmful, but it doesn't work well to tell them what they have to do. You can, however, offer insentive to influence direction.

I'm going to quote this one more time:

Companies must behave by the laws and regulations set by the people, through their elected officials, just like the individual citizents.

And, just as individuals do, companies have rights. Companies are private industries and operate as entities. I know I wouldn't like it if the government came to my door and told me that I had to research on my own time the AIDS threat. I wouldn't, however, mind if the government offered me something to do so.

I tied the socialism comment in because I associate strong government and socialogical control of industry with it. I was asking Feisty to ellaborate on her statement, because I didn't want to misconstrue.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Well, that wouldn't be the first time I've jumped to conclusions. My apologies.

 

[auxprix]

No worries.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Flatlander and PeachMonkey clarified what I was trying to say and said so awkwardly.

Our government, ideally influenced and run by citizens (not corporations) can influence corporations to behave in certain ways. I don't think anyone has said "we should ransack Eli Lily and Bayer" or anything like that. But I think we should use our influence to get companies to a) produce generics of the HIV-treatment drugs, and b) set up tax breaks or other incentives in return for donating these drugs to hard-hit African nations - or, alternatively, selling them cheaply to our government, who will then distribute the drugs and education in these nations.

It is so frustruating because the drugs people need exist, but the countries that are hardest hit are far too poor to buy these drugs at the current market price in $US. It is a dirty shame and a travesty when an epidemic that is so cruel continues to happen, and people continue to suffer, in part because other more well-to-do countries who have the drugs and the educational programs are not motivated to step in.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

The peace prize is a different type of award. It is not earned on intellectual merrit. It is earned on deeds and moving the world towards peace. She may have a past of doing so, but her current actions are uninformed, dangerous, and stupid. Not very fitting of a laureate.

I forgot to add last time.... Still, it's her choice.

Watson and Crick won the award for "discovering" the double helix (I'll let any other arguments I have with that stand aside)...and just last year (or 2 years ago) Watson was giving one of the most crackpot lecture series I've ever heard of. "Fat people are happy." "Dark-skinned people are sexier than light-skinned people." He had some sort of hypothesis on melatonin and fat or insulin or something, but it was pretty nutty. No-one suggested his prize be taken away when he clearly was way off base, scientifically.

 

[auxprix]

I forgot to add last time.... Still, it's her choice.

Watson and Crick won the award for "discovering" the double helix (I'll let any other arguments I have with that stand aside)...and just last year (or 2 years ago) Watson was giving one of the most crackpot lecture series I've ever heard of. "Fat people are happy." "Dark-skinned people are sexier than light-skinned people." He had some sort of hypothesis on melatonin and fat or insulin or something, but it was pretty nutty. No-one suggested his prize be taken away when he clearly was way off base, scientifically.

As for that prize, I think that Rosalind Franklin deserved it just as much as they did.

Ok, so maybe Watson fell from grace. But the discovery is still one of the most important for the scientific community in this century. The peace prize is given to someone who helps bring the world closer to peace and equality. What I'm saying is that whatever benefits she's done can be offset by the baseless accusations she's already started to make. And if this is just the beginning, than we can be prepared for more.

But, upon reading my post, I realize that I was a bit harsh. On reflection, I don't think that her prize should be taken away. I was just initially very frustrated at her 'Non-peaceprize lauriate' behavior.

As for the drug company thing, I agree with you whole heartedly. I just didn't want to misconstrue what you had said (which I unfortunately did).

 

[Xequat]

So, I still don't understand what more could be done and how we can do it. I agree with FeistyMouse that if we have the ability to do something we should, but like I said before, I think that we already are doing what we can. We have limited resources and we are spending them on other diseases which cost more lives, especially in our own country. Not to sound harsh, but shouldn't we worry about those first, or at least in proportion?