Thailand develops HIV vaccine

Do you disagree with anything in particular with the post you quoted, or was that a blatant attempt at trolling?

Well for a start...

a.) I don't know anyone who has it, and I don't know anyone who knows anyone who has it.
b.) I don't go to nightclubs hoping to "get laid" with randoms.
c.) Condoms may not be 100% effective at stopping the spread of HIV, they are probably more liek 90% effective unless you're doing something bizarre. Either way, I think they well considerably well enough not to warrant spending precious resources developing a cure for a preventable disease.
 
That only extends so far. If you KNOW you're children will have HIV, yet have children anyway.... that isn't a lifestyle choice, that's sick. If you KNOW you'll infect someone, yet have sex with them, that isn't a lifestyle choice, that is positively evil. If you KNOW you'll contract HIV from sharing needles with someone infected, that isn't a lifestyle choice, it is retarded. There is risk, then there is stupidity.

Yeah I'm sure every carrier knows they have it straight away.
 
Double you tee eff.

wtf like this below....V

mkxkcj.jpg
 
RNA retroviruses mutate more, but even dsDNA virus mutate a **** of a lot. A bigger difference is the length of time the virus persists in the hosts; years of kicking around is a long time to establish mutational forms.

So, yeah, I'll agree HIV is probably worse, but this doesn't mean it's impossible*.



* - in theory, if not in practice.
It is orders of magnitude more difficult to create a HIV vaccine. But yeah, not impossible. Then again, it's possible Kaley Cuoco will call me in a bit for some casual sex.
 
How so?

Is HIV really the most pressing issue facing mankind today? Especially as most people who get the disease inflicted it on themselves by their lifestyle.

so having sex is a lifestyle choice..... guess that explains your reason for being into computers then







(perhaps if you chose to enlighten yourself you'd find that the majority of AIDS sufferers live in the 3rd world and don't always have access to clean water let alone condoms. In fact a good portion didn't have the opportunity for basic education and don't really know a whole lot about AIDS despite its prevalence within their communities. Even the president of South Africa (supposedly a more developed nation in Africa) denies the link between HIV and AIDS. Perhaps then you'd feel less inclined to make such ill-informed and frankly retarded comments because, yes, as far as pressing issues facing mankind are concerned, AIDS is definitely up there)
 
as for the article - unfortunately with isolated medical research trials if you find some dramatic result like this then its more likely down to error on the part of the researchers than a dramatic breakthrough. Though lets hope it isn't....
 
so having sex is a lifestyle choice..... guess that explains your reason for being into computers then

Having sex isn't the cause of HIV infection. Having lots of unprotected sex with partners whom you have no idea of the sexual history of tends to be the main cause as does sharing needles in drug use. Both of which would certainly fall under "lifestyle choice".

That of course does not mean I think all such people should just die because of their lifestyle choice.
 
It is true - the person with the sore throat is more likely to pass more blood into their saliva than any normal female or male passing blood into their bodily fluids during intercourse.
A sore throat? You mean cuts and bloody wounds surely? Even if so/not, you'd need to drink gallons of it. With anal sex, you don't need gallons. You just need a little tearing (which happens almost every time). It doesn't mean gushing with blood - you might not even see it. HIV transmission can occur from this abrasion to the soft tissue on the base of the tip of the penis. Which is why circumcision has been effective (as it hardens skin).

Either way, you can not catch HIV from kissing someone.
 
Last edited:
A sore throat? You mean cuts and bloody wounds surely? Even if so/not, you'd need to drink gallons of it. With anal sex, you don't need gallons. You just need a little tearing (which happens almost every time). It doesn't mean gushing with blood - you might not even see it. HIV transmission can occur from this abrasion to the soft tissue on the base of the tip of the penis. Which is why circumcision has been effective (as it hardens skin).

Either way, you can not catch HIV from kissing someone.

I thought you were saying you were just as likely to get HIV from vaginal sex as you were from anal sex.
 
I thought you were saying you were just as likely to get HIV from vaginal sex as you were from anal sex.
I said more likely from anal than vaginal (although mainly receptive gives increased risk).

It's simple mechanics. Oral = very well lubricated, so no tearing = very low risk of HIV transmission (out of 20,000 HIV+ BJs, 1 giver will catch HIV). Vaginal, usually well lubricated, so small chance of tearing, more chance. Anal = usually poorly lubricated, even with lube this runs out/down and you get tearing. Anal (rectal) tissue is incredibly soft and tears even with the gentlest pokes.
 
Last edited:
so having sex is a lifestyle choice..... guess that explains your reason for being into computers then
Well done :)

(perhaps if you chose to enlighten yourself you'd find that the majority of AIDS sufferers live in the 3rd world and don't always have access to clean water let alone condoms. In fact a good portion didn't have the opportunity for basic education and don't really know a whole lot about AIDS despite its prevalence within their communities. Even the president of South Africa (supposedly a more developed nation in Africa) denies the link between HIV and AIDS. Perhaps then you'd feel less inclined to make such ill-informed and frankly retarded comments because, yes, as far as pressing issues facing mankind are concerned, AIDS is definitely up there)
Okay.
 
I think before people get carried away with the "Vaccine cuts HIV by 30%", that these studies need to be replicated.

If you look at the figures, the difference in infections between the two groups was 23 cases.
Given the size of the two groups it could be that the difference comes down to the people, their lifestyle or situation.
Yes all the people were given counselling on HIV infections, but it could be that more people in the placebo got drunk had had unprotected sex.

Another way to look at the results is to say in the vaccine group the percentage of people with HIV was 0.62% and the placebo group was 0.90%, but this doesn't sound impressive enough for the headlines.

It's all a case of lies, damn lies and statistics.
 
Back
Top Bottom