Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
HIV Vaccine: Potentially Do More Harm Than Good?  
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1230 times:

Though I realize none of you can predict the future, I'm interested to hear your expectant and perhaps personal take on this eventual occurrence:

If/once an effective HIV vaccine is released to the public, do you feel its resultant outcome would be more beneficial, or more harmful, in the longrun??







  • On the positive side: the lives of thousands, if not millions, could be spared. Particularly infants, or those hailing from extremely impoverished areas, and Africa.

  • On the negative side: the widespread use of any such vaccine could spark another sexual revolution-- the results of which may hasten the [inevitable?] onset of a fatal STD powerful enough to make HIV seem like childsplay.




    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





    Also, what about when it comes to looking out for numero uno:



    If you choose not to answer it here, at least contemplate it to yourself-- if you knew some wonder drug could reduce your chances of HIV infection during unprotected sex to negligible probability, would you still choose to employ what you've no-doubt learned about protecting yourself over the last 23+ years?

    I mean, let's be real here:
    many people HATE the precautions of safe sex, and only employ it for the sole purpose of negating an HIV infection. (The same argument can independently be made for pregnancy, but that's anecdotal to what we're talking about)

    And for the sake of candor:
    many if not most, everyday people barely know what Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, etc even are; much less actively employ the extreme protective measures required to prevent their spread (aside from abstinence of course). That's why I've restricted this entire hypothetical assessment to HIV only.




    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




    So in the end.... in aggregate terms of lives, dollars, and human nature; would a highly-effective HIV vaccine actually cause more harm than good?

    What say you?

  • 25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
     
    User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1212 times:

    How can something that will save the lives of millions of people and save future generations of young people be potentially more harmful. And if a valid viral vaccine against HIV is found, the ramifications for viral vaccines against unknown mutant strains of other viruses is enormous. We should welcome such a development instead of being concerned about the relative stupidity of some people who may lower their sexual guard.

    As far as other STDs are concerned, there are potential cures and treatments.

    And while your concerns for future bouts of STDs through a sexual revolution are valid, public health directives can always issue warnings that an HIV vaccine may not protect a vaccine recipient from unknown strains of HIV.

    In any case, HIV research has had ENORMOUS benefits on overal biological and immunological research. Many cancer drugs have developed because HIV research created amazing new breakthroughs. Vaccine research has developed in leaps and bounds because of the HIV-directed concerns.

    And remember, that even if and when an HIV vaccine is developed, there are other viral diseases that are air and water borne that are FAR more dangerous than HIV is. We stand an attack from new mutant strains of airborned viruses more so than we do from a relative relaxation in sexual awareness.


    User currently offlineCha747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 788 posts, RR: 6
    Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1182 times:

    Concordeboy - Your question is great...unfortunately, it brings up more questions. Like who should be vaccinated? When? Should it be mandatory? Should insurance companies or governments have to pay? What if a patient refuses the vaccine...will they be denied healthcare insurance? What if there are nonresponders...people who thought they were vaccinated but then end-up with the disease. What effect will the vaccine have on pregnant women? Those who are immune compromised? I could go on and on.

    Look at childhood vaccines for example. Pediatricians have guidelines for giving different vaccines at different times and these guidelines change as vaccines change and as disease profiles change. Some of the classical teaching in medicine has been lost. The best example is measles. With the advent of the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) shot, physicians in my generation have, under normal circumstances, never seen a single case of measles. Period, end of story. Here's the hitch.

    Do a search for the MMR vaccine. You can do a google search for MMR and autism. There were some reports a few years ago that children receiving this vaccine were becoming autistic. What happened...a cohort of parents decided to forego MMR vaccinations for their children. I'm not a public medicine doctor, but the ramifications of this could be that my contemporaries could see a resurgence of measles, mumps, and/or rubella. One of my mentors always says, "The mind does not see what it does not know." Sure, I've seen pictures of patients with measles, mumps, and rubella but if a patient walked-up to me with the symptoms of those diseases, I wouldn't even think twice about those diagnoses.

    Now this is just one example, but it brings-up a valid point. Vaccines really are mankind messing with nature. In some cases like with the live polio vaccine, we've actually indirectly transmitted the disease to innocent people! Most people who've had a flu shot can attest to having a fever and feeling flu-like for a few days. Can you imagine some people becoming immunosuppressed, even temporarily, by an HIV vaccine? Can you imaging "accidentally" spreading HIV with a vaccine?

    In the end, would I stick my arm (or rear-end) out and get the shot. I'm not sure...at least not yet. I agree that young, uninformed individuals may get the vaccine and think that they are more invincible, but I have a feeling that for the meantime, we need to be vigilant, educate people about HIV/AIDS, and convince all people to either practice safe sex or remain abstinent.

    Chattanooga 747



    You land a million planes safely, then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it - Pushing Tin
    User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days ago) and read 1143 times:

    It would be a great thing. It would alleviate pain and suffering from a horrible disease. Unfortunately, there are groups out there that would oppose such a vaccine on religious and political grounds.

    User currently offlineRyanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3221 posts, RR: 15
    Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1131 times:

    Well I think an HIV vaccine would be a great thing, but IMHO cancer cure progress is slightly more pressing.


    I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
    User currently offlineCha747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 788 posts, RR: 6
    Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1117 times:

    Unfortunately, there are groups out there that would oppose such a vaccine on religious and political grounds.

    Falcon - Which religious groups? Which political groups? Remember, many people have gotten this disease INNOCENTLY - patients who have needed blood transfusions, health care workers who've been stuck by contaminated sharps...the list goes on. I don't think that an HIV vaccine would give people "free reign" to copulate. Hepatitis C is just as, if not occasionally more, devastating than HIV. And unlike HIV where we have many different meds (antiretrovirals) to stop the progression of the disease, there are NO MEDS currenlty available to directly combat the Hep C virus. Frankly, when I'm working with sharps, I'm more worried that a patient might have Hep C than HIV. And Hep C can be sexually transmitted as well.



    You land a million planes safely, then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it - Pushing Tin
    User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1115 times:

    The issue of who should be vaccinated is very interesting. I for one don't see the HIV vaccine becoming a standard child hood vaccine in the US - though in certain parts of the world it would make sense. Africa for example has a run away AIDS problem and the only way to control the spread of this epidemic would be widespread vaccination to the entire population. As everyone knows, HIV is not spread through casual conduct, therefore the exposure risk for most people in the US is quite small.

    Adults, either because their lifestyle or their profession, expose them to high risks should be free to pick and choose whether or not they want the vaccine.

    Now the really interesting question will be how many of the HIV negative ACT UP and Hollywood activists will line up to serve as the test subjects for this vaccine.

    Let's see if after years of saying that enough wasn't being done to cure HIV/AID, whether they'll step up to the plate and put their lives at risk for a cure.


    User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1111 times:

    Falcon - Which religious groups? Which political groups? Remember, many people have gotten this disease INNOCENTLY

    I agree, but that certainly doesn't stop some on the very far fringe of the political spectrum, because of hatred and fear of one group that doesn't get AIDS/HIV so innocently, from hoping a vaccine doesn't materialize. I remember a certain minister, very famous, whom I won't name, who said that he felt AIDS was God's retribution on homosexuals. Now, that's pretty clear language, don't you think?



    User currently offlineCha747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 788 posts, RR: 6
    Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1103 times:

    I remember a certain minister, very famous, whom I won't name, who said that he felt AIDS was God's retribution on homosexuals.

    Ok...I'll give you that...if a person believes that a disease was retribution for a lifestyle choice, then I agree that they would be against such a vaccine. I just hope that such a minister provides their services to victims of the disease, be them homosexuals, heterosexuals, or young children.



    You land a million planes safely, then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it - Pushing Tin
    User currently offlineCaptoveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1093 times:

    I thought you went on vacation Alpha1?

    KROC will be more than happy to act as your AA (airliners anonymous) sponsor.

    As for an HIV vaccine, if it is out there why not just add it to the long list of diseases everyone in the civilized world has to be vaccinated against before they attend school?

    I think it will be a cold day in hell before one of these vaccines is actually created and found to be as safe as any other vaccine.

    Sometimes I do wonder about something like HIV/AIDS being part of a bigger picture. The virus really didn't exist 25 years ago and it is a total slate wiper, nobody survives it. The host stays alive, healty and contagious for long enough to spread it to hundreds or thousands of people if the want, it is a pretty nasty bug.

    There is a possibility it is some sort of human population controller and another part in the evolutionary cycle. However, to say it is gods retribution against gays is just stupid, straight people get it too. This is one of those times when a big part of me wants to take on the position of devils advocate and say don't cure AIDS. At some point we have to wonder when medicine starts interfering with the greater good, say AIDS/HIV is a rung in the evolutionary ladder and we eliminate it? What are the potential implications of the human species not evolving any further?

    To quote Ian Malcom (Jurrasic Park) "You were so wrapped up in the fact that you could, you never stopped to think if you should"


    User currently offlineCha747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 788 posts, RR: 6
    Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1086 times:

    I thought you went on vacation Alpha1?

    err...who are you calling A1?



    You land a million planes safely, then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it - Pushing Tin
    User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29836 posts, RR: 58
    Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1085 times:

    You know for some reason why I saw this topic the first thing that flashed to my mind was that episode of Southpark where all of the parents band together to get the kids all chickenpox, so the kids get revenge by getting together and giving all of the parents the closely related virus, Herpes.

    Ok serious, these are the types of questions that give medical ethicists the weebie-jeebies.

    Same catagory as making parents buy as seat for their kids car seat on airplanes, Sure they might protect the kid, but if parents choose to drive instead of fly because of the cost, are they not taking a greater risk?



    OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
    User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1084 times:

    "Well I think an HIV vaccine would be a great thing, but IMHO cancer cure progress is slightly more pressing."

    HIV research has impacted cancer research enormously. Many cancers are virally induced. Also, while HIV is a single actor, cancer is a result of numerous agents, factors (diet, genetics, etc). Incidentally, global cancer research dollars eclipse HIV research many times over.

    "Remember, many people have gotten this disease INNOCENTLY."

    The virus does not enter someone's bloodstream based on cultural concepts of innocence or guilt.

    " . . . it brings up more questions. Like who should be vaccinated?"

    Exactly. But a decision such as that can be based on risk factors which is routinely done for hepatitis vaccines. One reason that the polio vaccine was administered to children was because children had the highest risk of contracting polio.

    "In the end, would I stick my arm (or rear-end) out and get the shot. I'm not sure...at least not yet."

    All HIV vaccines are attenuated virus (i.e. a dead virus) or whole killed viruses. The fear of contracting an HIV-related infection is non-existent. As in other vaccine approvals, the side-effect profile is almost always tested first in infected, but healthy patients. There are nearly 40 HIV vaccine clinical trials in progress.


    User currently offlineCha747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 788 posts, RR: 6
    Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1074 times:

    The virus does not enter someone's bloodstream based on cultural concepts of innocence or guilt.

    We're using the word "innocent" differently. Innocent also means unaware. Take for example a trauma patient who needs blood. There is no consent, the blood is rushed from the blood bank and emergently transfused into the patient. Then the trauma patient survives only to be diagnosed with HIV a year later, his only HIV risk factor being his blood transfusion. Thus he was innocently infected.

    In the above scenario, the patient was not really given a choice. When you are sharing needles, engaging in sexual activity, or doing anything similar, you are taking a calculated risk.

    All HIV vaccines are attenuated virus (i.e. a dead virus) or whole killed viruses.
    There are nearly 40 HIV vaccine clinical trials in progress.

    Hold on a minute....sources please? I don't know of any trial of HIV attenuated viruses in humans...please post the source of this...I am curious to learn.

    The usual strategy is to artificially replicate the gag, pol, and env parts of HIV's viral genome, use a virus (possibly attenuated canarypox) to infect a human, and then have the immune system mount an immune response to the HIV gag, pol, or env antigens. These antigens are all synthetic and as of now, there is no direct risk of volunteers contracting HIV. But, no vaccine has yet been proven to work.



    You land a million planes safely, then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it - Pushing Tin
    User currently offlineCatatonic From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1155 posts, RR: 3
    Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1070 times:

    It would be a great thing. It would alleviate pain and suffering from a horrible disease. Unfortunately, there are groups out there that would oppose such a vaccine on religious and political grounds.

    They cant be very religious if they want others to suffer

    Well I think an HIV vaccine would be a great thing, but IMHO cancer cure progress is slightly more pressing.

    Both are equally important, in Africa more peopel die of AIDS than cancer, or are you saying that white lives are better to spare?

    Remember, many people have gotten this disease INNOCENTLY - patients who have needed blood transfusions, health care workers who've been stuck by contaminated sharps...the list goes on

    Your suggesting that people who dont fall into your category of "innocent" deserve to get it! All people who get the virus are innocent, theres no guilty was of getting it! Do gay people or drug abusers deserve to get this disease because of what they do? who are you to dish out retribution?






    [Edited 2004-09-20 17:03:59]


    Equally Cursed and Blessed.
    User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1070 times:

    "Hold on a minute....sources please? I don't know of any trial of HIV attenuated viruses in humans...please post the source of this...I am curious to learn."

    Sorry. Me bad. There are no current attenuated viral vaccines in clinicals. I should have made it clear that while attenuated viral vaccine constructs are being studied, they are not being administered in humans partly because similar SIV studies in monkeys showed infective mutations.

    And you are right that no vaccine has been proven to work. As a matter of fact, the enormous amount of pressure put on vaccine research has led to some really stupid clinical research.


    User currently offlineCha747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 788 posts, RR: 6
    Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1056 times:

    Also, something else to consider. If we create an HIV vaccine how I described above, we will also probably have to change how we test people for HIV. Currently, HIV testing is done by checking the blood for antibodies to the HIV virus. So I have to go back and explain some basic immunology for this to make sense. The virus is the antigen. The body see the antigen-infected cells as "not self" and directs an immune response to it. B-cells take weeks to months to make antibodies that attach to cells infected with the virus. These antibody coated cells are "marked" for killing. The killer T-Cells normally come along, find the cells that are marked, and kill those cells. The problem with HIV is that in the weeks to months that the B-cells have been learning how to make an antibody, the HIV virus has infected the T-cells making it impossible to kill "marked," infected cells.

    So your level of antibody ("markers") in the blood elevates. When you get to a certain level, it can be detected by special tests.

    So now you get your HIV vaccine. The B-cells make antibodies against the artificial viral parts in the hope that if you are ever infected with HIV, you have the antibodies floating around to "mark" infected cells and the killer T-cells will immediately kill all "marked" cells. BUT, you're making antibodies to HIV and if you are tested for HIV with the conventional ELISA or Western Blot techniques, then you will be "falsely positive." We will have to turn to CD4 cell counts and HIV viral load tests to determine HIV infection and, in the interim, this will be extremely costly and downright impossible in some very poor countries.

    In anycase, the above is a gross oversimplification of immunology and that's not really how it works. This is how I would conceptually teach it to others with non-scientific backgrounds. I apologize for taking this liberty but it is crucial for those who are interested in this topic to understand the ramifications of an HIV vaccine on public health in general.



    You land a million planes safely, then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it - Pushing Tin
    User currently offlineCha747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 788 posts, RR: 6
    Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1049 times:

    All people who get the virus are innocent, theres no guilty was of getting it! Do gay people or drug abusers deserve to get this disease because of what they do? who are you to dish out retribution?

    Catatonic - You are right. Again, perhaps I should use a word other than "innocent." I in no way want to imply that anybody (gay, straight, drug-abusers) deserve to get HIV or any other disease for that matter. Rather, I should say that people have gotten HIV in situations (still, where there is a calculated risk) where they are trying to be helpful.



    You land a million planes safely, then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it - Pushing Tin
    User currently offlineImonti From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1045 times:

    Unfortunately in a lot of African countires and a country such as South Africa the problems it will cause will out weigh the benefits. When people acuse the president of being a moron, they arnt looking ahead to the future and dont have his foresight.

    The majority of people with HIV/AIDS in South Africa are generally black people living beneath or just above the poverty line, they are generally unemployed and dont have a monthly income or any income.

    When the government decided not to give anti-retrovirals to people, I fully agree with their decision. If you can afford to purchase anti-retrovirals then by all means take them your self.

    Here is where the problem arrises. Pregnant mother with no money and father of child has run off has HIV and takes an anti-retroviral and the child doesnt get HIV. SHe dies a few years later and leaves a child, more often than not mroe than one. WHo then looks after the child as there is no one? There is no money to educate that child, clothe it, feed it or provide shelter for it, it will most likely become a begger and possibly resort to crime. Now with the problem faced of having a few millions AIDS orphans by 2010 does South Africa want to have to deal with such a problem? The simple answer is No as we cant, we dont have the man power, finances or resources to deal with it. So when the people slate the president I try and point that out to them, they then respond how can you be so cruel and heartless yet I dont see them running off to give money and time to help people with AIDS. It goes to the thing of you couldnt pull the trigger but you could get some one else to do it for you, which is esentially what is happening. It qutie simply boils down to money. Which is unfortunate but true.

    So no, it shouldt be given to people. We need to have the reasoning to think logically and not about, shame all the terrible things that happens. That unfortunately if life and it is unfair. DEAL WITH IT.

    I also have no time for people who say lets help some one with AIDS/HIV, in so many cases they have heard of the problem, no it exists and yet live in a state if denial thinking it wont happen to me, I know some one whose attitude is that in South Africa the majority of people with AIDS/HIV are black and his view is im white it wont happen to me, he is a good friend but if he gets it with that view must I feel sorry for him? the answer is No, if you get it from a blood transfusion then fine, but if you have been told about it and get it then man I DONT CARE.


    User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
    Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1042 times:

    Would it save lives? Of course it would, both the innocent and those who intentionally put themselves at risk.

    However, as noted by the thread starter, it would also open the door for people to once again engage in highly dangerous behavior and spread the other STD's out there, many of which are also incurable at this time. And sooner or later, something else, far worse than HIV will appear and all hell will break loose once again.

    Oh, and Alpha1 or whatever name you're using today, if you think that Christians and conservatives want people to get AIDS, then you're even more delusional and pathetic than I ever thought possible. Everything we stand for says we do not wish anything such as HIV/AIDS on anyone. However, we also know that most people who get it do so through their own actions. While we’re sorry it happened, we also know that they are reaping the consequences of their actions.



    "There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
    User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1033 times:

    "If we create an HIV vaccine how I described above, we will also probably have to change how we test people for HIV."

    Right, but not everyone would have an antibody response for one. However, current ELISA tests would either have to be updated or scrapped in favor of new viral tests.


    User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1022 times:

    However, as noted by the thread starter, it would also open the door for people to once again engage in highly dangerous behavior and spread the other STD's out there, many of which are also incurable at this time.

    And what business is it of yours, mine, or anyone else's, as to what anyone does in their private lives. Why does it concern you in the least?

    Oh, and Alpha1 or whatever name you're using today, if you think that Christians and conservatives want people to get AIDS, then you're even more delusional and pathetic than I ever thought possible.

    Then name is there. Maybe next time try using it?

    And I did not say "Christians and conservatives", did I? I said there are some people out there who would prefer a vaccine not be found. Jerry Falwell has said in the past that AIDS is a punishment from God to homsexuals. That's a pretty unambiguous statement.

    Christians and conservatives worth their salt certainly don't want anyone to get ill, but if you deny there are some on the far extremes of both who don't want this, better check who is being delusional.


    User currently offlineCatatonic From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1155 posts, RR: 3
    Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1012 times:

    b>Catatonic - You are right. Again, perhaps I should use a word other than "innocent." I in no way want to imply that anybody (gay, straight, drug-abusers) deserve to get HIV or any other disease for that matter. Rather, I should say that people have gotten HIV in situations (still, where there is a calculated risk) where they are trying to be helpful.

    Sorry to jump down your throat about it, its hard to judge peoples intentions on threads like this and wording is often the only way. Such a stupid thread to have on airliners anyway!



    Equally Cursed and Blessed.
    User currently offlineJessman From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1506 posts, RR: 7
    Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 986 times:

    One could argue for or against the word "innocent". Lets look at the opposite of innocence, guilt. Thanks to Mirriam Webster.

    Main Entry: guilt
    Pronunciation: 'gilt
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English, delinquency, guilt, from Old English gylt delinquency
    1 : the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty; broadly : guilty conduct
    2 a : the state of one who has committed an offense especially consciously b : feelings of culpability especially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy : SELF-REPROACH
    3 : a feeling of culpability for offenses


    Let me use an analogy. Lets say a victim of AIDS is the driver of a subcompact car traveling along the highway, and AIDS is a Large truck traveling in the opposite direction. Let's say the truck has tire failure and veers into oncoming traffic. This can be seen as what happens when someone got a blood transfusion, or was stuck accidentally by a contaminated needle. I think we can all see that it was not the fault of the driver of the car that they got hit, although one could say that no one should drive at all. I will never assign guilt to AIDS, although there are a seriously deranged number of people who would enjoy giving AIDS to others.
    NOW lets say the driver of the car was intoxicated and passed out, swerving into oncoming traffic hitting the truck head on. The consequences are the same. The person in the car dies. HOWEVER in this case the person in the car had done something that dramatically increased their risk of getting killed. Regardless of societal or cultural or even religious norms when you knowingly participate in an action that dramatically increases your risk of dying you have indeed committed a breach of conduct. There is most definitely a penalty. We call this penalty death. By definition this makes you guilty. This does not necessarily make you deserve the penalty. This does not make the penalty assured, either. All it does is remove the veil of "innocence" that marks others who did not engage in the activity.

    As far as religious radicals are concerned, I would venture that even those who feel that the disease is a punishment from God would be against a vaccine. It would be a testament to God's grace.

    There are some, who may not be against the vaccine being developed but would be against the vaccine entering their bodies or the bodies of their children. We saw this strain of people when the US military was being forced to be vaccinated against anthrax. Some did not want vaccinated. This is obviously not aimed at HIV but in certain vaccines in general.


    User currently offlineCatatonic From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1155 posts, RR: 3
    Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 944 times:

    Someone ^ has far to much time on their hands (YAWN)! Why don't you go tell that story down at your local hospice and give them all a quick and peaceful death!

    The basis of your argument is flawed in so many ways that I didn't think I could be bothered write a reply of the same caliber, but I have, and here it is:



    humorous yet stupid at the same time!



    Equally Cursed and Blessed.
    User currently offlineCtbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 50
    Reply 25, posted (10 years 3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 938 times:

    A no brainer: Provided the vaccine is effective, safe and inexpensive (my cynical side says choose any two), it would make a great difference, particularly to healthcare workers, people in developing countries (especially Africa where AIDS is expected to claim up to half the population), and others far beyond those who are looking for a remedy in anticipation of sexual promiscuty.

    In assessing whether to take or refuse the vaccine, the benefits must outweigh the risks, and in this case I believe it does.

    Charles, SJ



    The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
    Top Of Page
    Forum Index

    This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

    Printer friendly format

    Similar topics:More similar topics...
    It's Official: Iraq More Violent Than Ever posted Sun Sep 3 2006 03:47:31 by Turbo7x7
    Americans More Isolated Than Ever posted Sat Jun 24 2006 02:50:07 by Diamond
    Old PC More Reliable Than New PC's? posted Sun Dec 25 2005 23:01:34 by Dogfighter2111
    Why Are The Welsh More Important Than The Irish? posted Sun Nov 13 2005 07:37:46 by Jafa39
    Ikea More Popular Than The Bible posted Mon Nov 7 2005 16:03:21 by Runway23
    More Women Than Men Are Sci-fi Geeks, Apparently. posted Mon Oct 31 2005 11:31:46 by Gordonsmall
    Data Suggests Jail More Effective Than Rehab posted Fri Nov 26 2004 18:27:50 by EA CO AS
    Why Is Chicken More Expensive Than Turkey posted Fri Nov 26 2004 15:45:39 by 707cMf
    American Cars Now More Reliable Than European Ones posted Tue Mar 9 2004 16:00:45 by USAirways737
    Pilots Are More Sexy Than Singers posted Thu Feb 13 2003 00:20:51 by Racko