Another moral question - hypothetical

James J said:
Next 20 years? No chance. The virus is near perfection from a genetic point of view as it has genes across all three reading frames, something that was thought to be impossible before HIV was discovered and its genetic material was unraveled. You also don't have 1 single type of HIV in your body if you are infected, as they mutate so quickly, they render medical treatments useless. The retrovirals we invented now also have a poor prognostic result, as HIV can also go dormant whilst the viral load is lowered by medication to then resurface again as a completely different phenotype via mutation.

We'll cure most cancers before we stop HIV.
Click to expand...
What's a reading frame?
 
Castiel said:
No. People live quite safely with HIV and a few precautions means minimal risk to others.

Better to educate them than kill them.

Not much of a moral dilemma tbh.
Click to expand...

this really

also it is a condition that could be eradicated within a few decades anyway given the correct policies...
 
I don't know if it's important or not but I received an infraction for post #24 or #25 which was in jest, yes. Apologies if it was not taken that way or the intention based upon my historic and very public opinion sharing on this matter was not clear.

Well, this started out as an apology and now sounds far more defensive than I meant it to be. Summary : I made a mistake, sorry.
 
I'd ban depleted uranium before worrying about AIDS. Although be very scared if HIV mutates to be no longer killed by a mosquito's metabolism. It's the only virus that does at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom