Is An AIDS Vaccine Ethical?

[axi]

And then you wonder why people are prejudiced against Americans.

This guy is just like your country's president: an embarassment for all Americans.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Re: Is An AIDS Vaccine Ethical?

Wiglaf Wiglaf Wiglaf Wiglaf

It's soo fun when you are playing the perfect morron!

...

Of course if we follow this idea all countries in Africa and Asia desserve to be ravaged by this illness.

Maybe God decided to punish them.

So maybe it will be good to help Gob by using biological weapons of those previous countries ?

[Wiglaf]

Few quick points:

It would be far more expensive to carry out an extensive education, family planning and aids awareness program.

No it wouldn't....in case someone hasn't told you, the vaccine not only takes a huge amount of money to reproduce (sorry) and distribute, it also needs to be tested and everything. That's much more than a simple campaign of words would ever need.

Also, giving vaccines will alter birth rate, but then again, why should those people suffering from AIDS be the ones forced to suffer? Maybe we should stop polyomielitis vaccination and stop treating lepers as well... About this of spreading a disease by nutcakes... no comment.

I don't understand.

On this I'd think that defence spending is unethical. Also, 3,000 people died in September 11th, against possibly several hundreds thousands who have already died of AIDS. Perhaps you should redirect the research of chemical and bacteriological weapons to the CIA and FBI and continue with the AIDS reasearch.

Defence spending is unethical? How can that be true, under any circumstance? And I somehow doubt the 3000 people who died in September 11th brought it upon themselves like SOME of the dead or suffering in Africa did. Granted, a few just didn't know or got it through a needle or something. But that number is probably under 3000. If not, then maybe I need to rework my arguement.

A vaccine wouldn't save them? What is a vaccine for then! Wiglaf, have you been vaccinated for anything? Have you ever had measles, mumps, rubiola? Of course not, the racially pure are not subject to the diseases of these untermensch...

Vaccines for the measles, etc are for people who don't have the disease yet, buddy.

Macuser (aka Wiglaf):

Huh?

Bush rapes little boys, and because of his obsession with raping little boys he didn't have the time to push security reform in airports. He is directly responsible for 9-11, Wiglaf.

He doesn't rape little boys though.

[Asher]

I don't understand.

Story of your life.

He doesn't rape little boys though.

How would you know?

Here's an interesting theory:
Wiglaf = George W.

[Wiglaf]

I DON'T RAPE LITTLE BOYS, if that's what all you liberals were getting at.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Wiglaf- I really don't know what kind of satisafaction you obtain from daubing these faeces over this forum, but this really is truly moronic. You badly need a good, hard slap.

[Bilo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Few quick points:


Defence spending is unethical? How can that be true, under any circumstance? And I somehow doubt the 3000 people who died in September 11th brought it upon themselves like SOME of the dead or suffering in Africa did. Granted, a few just didn't know or got it through a needle or something. But that number is probably under 3000. If not, then maybe I need to rework my arguement.

Under 3000??? Here is a passage from the web site of the United Nations:

From a health problem, AIDS has deteriorated into a full-blown development catastrophe, with 3.8 million new cases this year in Africa alone.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
He doesn't rape little boys though.

Does he rape old boys?

[Immortal Wombat]

*loves my ignore list*

Originally posted by Berzerker
My prediction: the half-wit will win

Which one?

Actually, I agree with Wiglaf (I am guessing from the thread title, I haven't read his arguments). To give millions of dying people the gift of life, and the promise of a better future is clearly unethical, and would cause far more suffering than it prevents.

Wiggy just gets funnier.

[Wiglaf]

Under 3000??? Here is a passage from the web site of the United Nations:

Read my post a little better next time, Bil. I said the number of people with AIDS who didn't bring it upon themselves (either who didn't know the consequences of sex or who got it from a needle, etc) is probably under 3000. Let's face it, most of those 3.8 million didn't get AIDS from the air or whatever.

If the number of people with AIDS who didn't have anything to do with their own infection is above 3,000, I'll shutup and apologize, because in that case I really am an ass. But not until I get some hard data first.

[Wiglaf]

Actually, I agree with Wiglaf (I am guessing from the thread title, I haven't read his arguments). To give millions of dying people the gift of life, and the promise of a better future is clearly unethical, and would cause far more suffering than it prevents.

A vaccine doesn't help those already infected, Wombat. It only allows the people to keep screwing around, which is hardly productive.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Do you have any idea how fast it spread? It raged unchecked along the Kinshasa highway for years before the first symptoms emerged. We're talking tens of thousands of infections in the 1970's before anyone had the slightest idea that a killer STD had arrived.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
A vaccine doesn't help those already infected, Wombat. It only allows the people to keep screwing around, which is hardly productive.

You're a ****ing ******.
It doesn't help those already affected, but it DOES affect the MILLIONS of people who may get it.

Sure, AIDS is spread most through sex. If you ever hit puberty, and actually go out and have sex (whether it be recreational or to have some kids), you'd probably want a vaccine as well.

But seeing as you're wholly undesirable, I can see why you hold such a grudge against people who get some.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
If the number of people with AIDS who didn't have anything to do with their own infection is above 3,000, I'll shutup and apologize, because in that case I really am an ass. But not until I get some hard data first.

Assuming your brain can cope with the maths, I'll bite:

Percentage under 16s in Africa: ~20% of population (maybe more)
So we have 3.8M*0.2 = 760,000 children with AIDS
then we estimate how many of them had unprotected sex (or caught through drug taking, whatever). I'll be genorous and say 60% (Utter bull****, but whatever...)
so 760,000*0.4 = 304,000 ie. about 10 times larger than you say. Who have AIDS because their parents had AIDS, and passed it on at birth. No fault of their own by any stretch of your twisted vile imagination.

[Immortal Wombat]

guess the object in the following sentences

Originally posted by Wiglaf
A vaccine doesn't help those already infected, Wombat. It only allows the people to keep screwing around, which is hardly productive.

DAMN RIGHT. THE STUPID IDIOTS PROBABLY DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND THE EDUCATION PROGRAMMES THAT ARE GOING ON!!

It makes me sick.

[Bilo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Read my post a little better next time, Bil. I said the number of people with AIDS who didn't bring it upon themselves (either who didn't know the consequences of sex or who got it from a needle, etc) is probably under 3000. Let's face it, most of those 3.8 million didn't get AIDS from the air or whatever.

If the number of people with AIDS who didn't have anything to do with their own infection is above 3,000, I'll shutup and apologize, because in that case I really am an ass. But not until I get some hard data first.

According to UN, there are 2.7 children under 15 who have AIDS and 580000 children under 15 died from AIDS last year alone. I don't think that you can blame children for "bringing it upon themselves". So, it look like you are an ass.

http://www.unaids.org/worldaidsday/2001/Epiupdate2001/Epiupdate2001_en.pdf