-- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 10:20 am on Oct. 29, 2008 I don't know if there is one yet, there probably is and the FDA is keeping it from us... but here's the proof that it's possible. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_06.html I stumbled across it. -- Posted by Dylan90 at 10:22 am on Oct. 29, 2008 The government makes tons of money off of AIDS. I wouldn't get your hopes up. But it would be quite miraculous. -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 10:29 am on Oct. 29, 2008 Quote: from Dylan90 at 2:52 pm on Oct. 29, 2008 The government makes tons of money off of AIDS. I wouldn't get your hopes up. But it would be quite miraculous. no seriously. It's possible, it may have been already created or is a natural cure, it's just that the government would never, just as I said, the FDA is a pack of greedy fucks. There's a natural cure for cancer, it's just that the FDA makes too much money off of cancer patients to release such information. This really pisses me off, how greedy they are -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 11:34 am on Oct. 30, 2008 What is this "natural" cure for cancer? How does the US government profit off cancer patients? Strange how only American drugs companies have managed to develop a natural cure for all cancers and no one else has even heard of it let alone discovered it themselves... -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 1:23 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from The Samsoniteman at 4:04 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 What is this "natural" cure for cancer? How does the US government profit off cancer patients? Strange how only American drugs companies have managed to develop a natural cure for all cancers and no one else has even heard of it let alone discovered it themselves... I do not know the cure but it is out there.  The US Goverment, or more appropriately the FDA profits from them. You can't make money off of healthy people when youre a drug company. think about it. and the reason you don't here about it is because of censorship due to a law stating: "only a drug can cure prevent or treat a disease." It hurts us as a race and it pisses me off. Sounds like you got a little too much faith in these corporations. Keep in mind that their only legal responsibility is to make money for their shareholders. -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 5:36 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from BleedingSteelWings at 8:23 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 I do not know the cure but it is out there. Yar, like aliens and Jesus. The US Goverment, or more appropriately the FDA profits from them. You can't make money off of healthy people when youre a drug company. think about it. No indeed, but the government and the FDA are not drug companies. The government would hugely benefit from finding a cure for any cancer out there, millions of tax dollars would be saved if they didn't have to care for so many victims of cancer. If a drug company discovered a new drug that cured a cancer it would be in their best interests to get it patented as quickly as possible, because many other researchers would be fairly near the same thing considering how similar the aims, objectives and methods of drug companies are. Even if they did want to cover it up it would be impossible, someone somewhere would say something. and the reason you don't here about it is because of censorship due to a law stating: "only a drug can cure prevent or treat a disease." It hurts us as a race and it pisses me off. Which law is this? And again, if this is an American law, funny how the rest of the world hasn't developed this wonder drug. Sounds like you got a little too much faith in these corporations. Keep in mind that their only legal responsibility is to make money for their shareholders. That's not a legal responsibility, but you're right. Big pharm exists soley to profit. You're talking to the wrong person, I'm a medic involved in action between pharm companies and medical students. I know vastly more about this than you do. If you can provide even a shred of evidence then I might be more inclined to believe you. But for now I'm going to join the rest of the world when I say there is no drug that can cure all cancer. There never, ever will be. -- Posted by allsmiles at 1:37 am on Oct. 31, 2008 -.-'' the government makes more money out of taxing the living than it does out of AIDS. On the thought of a vaccine, though, it is intriguing, but it's not the first time that it's been claimed. This method sounds like it'd require genetic therapy, which is a big ethical battleground at the moment. -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 10:08 am on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 6:07 am on Oct. 31, 2008 -.-'' the government makes more money out of taxing the living than it does out of AIDS. On the thought of a vaccine, though, it is intriguing, but it's not the first time that it's been claimed. This method sounds like it'd require genetic therapy, which is a big ethical battleground at the moment. only because of conservative sects. if it helps then do it. -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 4:29 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from BleedingSteelWings at 6:08 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 only because of conservative sects. if it helps then do it. Gene therapy is definitely not soley opposed by conservatives. -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 5:46 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 This topic is like a Russian nesting doll carved from solid stupidwood, and each time SteelWings posts, we see a new piece of idiocy that had been hidden within the previous bit of nonsense. I mean, seriously. Wings, just read what Samsonite said. Over and over again. Find a translator, if necessary. -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 4:05 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 oh for fuck's sakes... Go vote for a milf already. -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 4:07 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 Quote: from The Samsoniteman at 8:59 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from BleedingSteelWings at 6:08 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 only because of conservative sects. if it helps then do it. Gene therapy is definitely not soley opposed by conservatives. by whom then? -- Posted by Death7priestess at 4:12 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 I agree with bleedingsteel wings , and btw horseman you shouldnt be a jerk just for the sake to say that someone is stupid , why dont you go do something genius and prove to the world you arent a coward who does nothing but pick on people who are smart and have ideas. -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 5:30 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 Quote: from BleedingSteelWings at 12:07 am on Nov. 5, 2008 by whom then? Huge numbers of socially liberal people are against it and similar uses of science for a number of reasons, most often because of the potential for abuse and lack of study. Just because gene therapy might help people doesn't mean we should throw caution to the wind and jump on board. This is not a simple case of "if it helps, allow it". It almost never is with medicine. -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 5:53 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 Quote: from The Samsoniteman at 10:00 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 Quote: from BleedingSteelWings at 12:07 am on Nov. 5, 2008 by whom then? Huge numbers of socially liberal people are against it and similar uses of science for a number of reasons, most often because of the potential for abuse and lack of study. Just because gene therapy might help people doesn't mean we should throw caution to the wind and jump on board. This is not a simple case of "if it helps, allow it". It almost never is with medicine. I'm not sayin throw caution to the wind... I'm just saying if it has a chance try and go further. There are always risks and we should be vigilant of them and try to keep em from causing any serious harm. -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 5:55 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 Dude you said it was only an ethical battleground because of "conservative sects". I was merely pointing out that huge numbers of of very different people are slowing scientific development down, some for bad reasons and some for good. -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 6:00 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 Quote: from The Samsoniteman at 10:25 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 Dude you said it was only an ethical battleground because of "conservative sects". I was merely pointing out that huge numbers of of very different people are slowing scientific development down, some for bad reasons and some for good. well now I understand your viewpoint and i somewhat agree. -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 6:38 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 Quote: from Death7priestess at 7:12 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 I agree with bleedingsteel wings , Since you agree, you'll undoubtedly be happy to explain how a regulatory agency of the US government profits in any way from suppressing a cure for AIDS and what black sorcery they must be working in order to prevent scientists in other nations from replicating the cure and spreading it. I'll just wait over here. and btw horseman you shouldnt be a jerk just for the sake to say that someone is stupid , why dont you go do something genius and prove to the world you arent a coward who does nothing but pick on people who are smart and have ideas. Show me a smart person whose ideas I've picked on in this topic and I'll be glad to apologize. Meanwhile, feel free to cease expressing your opinions in ways that other people can notice. -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 12:37 pm on Nov. 5, 2008 Where shall wisdom be found indeed... Okay someone, please lock this topic. I've had enough. -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 4:05 pm on Nov. 5, 2008 Quote: from BleedingSteelWings at 3:37 pm on Nov. 5, 2008 Where shall wisdom be found indeed...   Okay someone, please lock this topic. I've had enough. Or, alternatively, it could stay open until you adequately explain and justify your paranoid delusions. -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 4:51 pm on Nov. 5, 2008 Kevin Trudeau... Nuff said. -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 4:19 am on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from BleedingSteelWings at 7:51 pm on Nov. 5, 2008 Kevin Trudeau... Nuff said. Well if someone CONVICTED OF FRAUD said so... -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 6:17 am on Nov. 7, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 8:49 am on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from BleedingSteelWings at 7:51 pm on Nov. 5, 2008 Kevin Trudeau... Nuff said. Well if someone CONVICTED OF FRAUD said so... Well I wasnt aware of that. Let it go. -- Posted by AtomicCactus at 11:45 am on Nov. 9, 2008 Oh yes.  My school (U of M) received a grant from the Gates Foundation related to this research. Anyhow, these little buggers are tricky.  I'm surprised the whole CD4/CCR5 route hasn't been the initial mode of attack.  Current anti-HIV regimens have been related to protease inhibitors (to prevent concatemeric protein cleavage characteristic of their mode of translation) and antiretrovirals, preventing reverse transcription of their RNA genomes. Despite those modes of attack, the HIV virus has evolved quite a bit to evade these countermeasures.  In fact, this virus evolves so much each HIV-infected individual's HIV genome is fairly unique, leading to an 'HIV fingerprint'. Nonetheless, despite all these findings, they'll have limited success.  Currently, gene therapy is far far far away from viability.  And when it happens, the HIV virus will mutate.  True, now both receptors are required for viral anchoring and penetration, but that might not be the case down the road. All in all, the development of therapeutics is a very difficult and money-intensive process.  It's a billion-dollar/10+ year venture just to get something onto the market.