Is An AIDS Vaccine Ethical?

[Wiglaf]

You're on the right track when you speak of imbedding the "right mind-set" in the African populace if by that you mean educating them on the dangers of STDs and the proper methods of safe sex to avoid such them. But asking people to abstain from sex, however, is like asking them to cease all eating, breathing, and heart palpations.

What a ridiculous statement, and what a ridiculous person if you honestly believe this disease cannot be avoided because of some "biological requirement" which in reality is only an inclination.

AND OH!!! LOOK AT THE EVIL WORLD!!! Millions of people are having sex RIGHT NOW!!! Oh my god! Well I surely hope they all get AIDS and die. Oh, wait, not the white people of course...

White people who get AIDS through sex also brought it upon themselves, obviously, but Africa is especially mentioned in this thread because everyone seems to have assumed the disease is spread through the air or something, which isn't true. A solid education program would last well into the days of a cure. You'd be suprised.

Bill: Your first link clearly spells out that most people with AIDs "dont know they have it", which just cries out education. A broad program to tell these people what's up would go over a lot better and would help much more than some unstable vaccine that only encourages more and more screwing around among the mental. Besides, the rush to get the vaccine would cause wars and everything. Your second link, again doesn't work properly.

OK Wiggy,

The tomahawk is a bit cheaper than I thought (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm) $1.4M a piece on average. The total development costs were over $11 Billion.

A single B-2 Stealth Bomber cost $1.3 Billion (http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_2_Spirit.html)

On average to develop a new drug costs $500M (http://www.thebody.com/gmhc/issues/...01/r_and_d.html).

For an overview of what the NIH is funding on HIV research see http://www.nih.gov/od/oar/public/pu...i_overview.pdf.

In the federal budget of 2000 $666M was set aside for HIV research (http://www.thebody.com/apla/june99/funding.html)

So two years of HIV research (potentially helping hundreds of millions of victims) costs the same as one B-2. And you're still saying the federal government spends too much on HIV research.

LOL! An article by some guy named Mitch Muchler or whatever it was is hardly reputable. What's more, that's not research money, that's prevention money that totals $666 million. Big difference guys. (and if you think congress really dished out that exact amount, I don't know what you're on but get off it quick)

[Velociryx]

To borrow one of the best lines from Civ3....

Three words, Wiglaf:

Increase your Medication.



-=Vel=-

[Bilo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

White people who get AIDS through sex also brought it upon themselves, obviously, but Africa is especially mentioned in this thread because everyone seems to have assumed the disease is spread through the air or something, which isn't true. A solid education program would last well into the days of a cure. You'd be suprised.

Bill: Your first link clearly spells out that most people with AIDs "dont know they have it", which just cries out education. A broad program to tell these people what's up would go over a lot better and would help much more than some unstable vaccine that only encourages more and more screwing around among the mental. Besides, the rush to get the vaccine would cause wars and everything. Your second link, again doesn't work properly.

A solid education program? Most people in the sub-saharian Africa are iliterate, some of them are starving and/or at war. Are you going to tell those people "Listen, if you don't use those rubber bags while having sex, you'll get a terrible disease and painfully die 10-15 years later."??
Why wait for a cure, when the vaccine can eradicate the disease in a few decades? Btw, because of the way viral diseases work, a cure is not as reliable as vaccine.
I do not belive that the rush for vaccication for a disease that kills in 10 years would cause wars in an area where the life expactancy is less than 40 years.

In one of your previous posts you wrote:

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.

I belive you got your hard data; now it's time for you to apologize and shut up.

[Bilo]

Originally posted by Velociryx
To borrow one of the best lines from Civ3....

Three words, Wiglaf:

Increase your Medication.



-=Vel=-

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
LOL! An article by some guy named Mitch Muchler or whatever it was is hardly reputable.

Excellent reasoning. If the guy has a silly name, then he is not a reputable source.

I have yet to see you post a single link, Wiglaf. If you're pulling your entire argument out of your ass, then you're hardly a more reputable source than Mitch Muchler.

[Stefu]

Maybe we should considering taking the fine ancient Greek tradition 'ostrakismos' to use. Every half year or so we'd vote on one person who'd get permabanned. I know who I'd be voting.

I'm not serious, of course. Or am I?

[lightblue]

Originally posted by Stefu
Maybe we should considering taking the fine ancient Greek tradition 'ostrakismos' to use. Every half year or so we'd vote on one person who'd get permabanned. I know who I'd be voting.

I'm not serious, of course. Or am I?

I think he brings some amusement to the OT Forum. He might not mean to, but...

BTW, he was slightly right about the number ($666M) being the wrong one. The same link however also provides the amount spent on HIV research by the NIH (a little under $2 Billion in 1999). Still the argument stands, what do you rather have: a fully-armed B-2 or a hundred million people that do not have to suffer because we can prevent AIDS.

[CyberGnu]

Quite unrelated to Wiglafs ramblings, there IS actually a debate on ethics and HIV vaccine.

The problem is that even a non-patent vaccine would cost around $100 per person, if not more. Very few goverments in africa could afford to pay $100 per person for a few million people, even less vaccination of every citizen. We also know that when money has been donated to some african countries they have not been spent on what they are supposed to go towards, as corruption is rampant. Even worse, when actual items such as clothes have been donated there have been recorded events of where local warlords have hijacked the trucks, thrown out the stuff they don't want and kept the machines for their own use.

Furthermore, the infrastructure is such that in several countries some places would be missed due to bad records, warfare, etc etc.

Now, the problem with HIV is that mutates like mad. I we were to vaccinate 95% of the population, and an average of 30% of unprotected people have it, we would still have 1 or 2% that walks around with HIV. With HIV, it is basically a question of time before it would mutate into a form where the previous vaccine is useless.

So, should we donate vaccine to africa, knowing that we might increase the problem down the line, or must we look to the long term saving of lives?

This is of course a hypothetical question, as there is no vaccine, nor is there likely to be, since NO pharmaceptical company is today researching an HIV vaccine... There just ins't any money in a vaccine, the pharmas prefer cures...

But the same question is even more relevant today regarding whether africa should be exempt from patent law on the AZT cocktail so they can afford to treat their own population. Are we morally required to help africa, when doing so might spell death for millions of western eurpeans who today can be kept alive pretty much indefinetly on treatment?

[Maj]

Well, I give up. So yes Wiglaf, by your reasoning that does verify your entire argument. Congratulations.

I'm so ridiculous.

- Maj

[lightblue]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

But the same question is even more relevant today regarding whether africa should be exempt from patent law so they can afford to treat their own population. Are we morally required to help africa, when doing so might spell death for millions of western eurpeans?

How do you figure that? Why would helping out other people cost lives in the Western world? Taxes might have to be raised to help out, but that's a price worth paying, and hardly lethal.

You're right about the vaccine. It will be hard, but I think it's possible. Like I said earlier the fact that HIV reservoir cells are part of the immune system and downregulates antigen presentation, makes it a lot harder to get a decent immune response and memory cell production. You're also right about the pharm companies, but this thread is specifically about federal funding for vaccine development, which is definitely done (see the NIH link I provided earlier).

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I think we're hitting the nub of the problem here. Wiglaf appears to think that sex is dirty and shameful.

OK Wiglaf- tell me what words spring to mind when you think about your mother...

[Wiglaf]

Good, good stuff Gnu.

I strongly support all of his arguements and am glad beyond all measure that someone around here is at least a moral and decent human being enough to be open to a certain degree of reasonable free thought. The rest of you take note.

belive you got your hard data; now it's time for you to apologize and shut up.

Bull****. The only data I got basically said Africans were just a ton of morons and a vaccine would make it all better, straight out of some Muchlerbackentach guy's mouth, or whoever it was. Worthless. The cost for research is also very poorly estimated to simply equal the cost of a bomber...

A broad and drawn out educational program, effective as soon as possible, is our best bet.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Utter crap, Wiglaf. While I'm reluctant to re-enter this thread for fear of being trampled in your headlong dash to Gnu's lifeline of some marginal degree of mercenary respectability, I have to remind you of this.

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

If you're using British semantics, you're a small equine mammal noted for stubbornness. If you're using US semantics you're a pair of flabby cheeks with a reeking and ****-encrusted hole between.

[Wiglaf]

If you're using British semantics, you're a small equine mammal noted for stubbornness. If you're using US semantics you're a pair of flabby cheeks with a reeking and ****-encrusted hole between.

The people with AIDs who contracted it from a needle or whatever is actually quite less than 3000. The ones who just didn't know probably total over that figure - that's what the educational program is for in the first place.

[CyberGnu]

Lightblue, it is not the cost that is the problem par se. The problem is that if we do a halfmeasured attempts of vaccination/cure, the HIV will most likely mutate into a form where the vaccine/cure is inactive.

A quirk with these little buggers is that a mutated virus is almost always less viable than the wild type. So if a virus mutates into a form that is AZT resistant it will most likely die, as it is less viable than the non mutant form. But, if it mutates into a AZT resistant form when there is AZT present, this provides an advantage, and it will multiply at the expense of non mutant form. When AZT administration is discontinued, the original type is again more viable, and will multiply at the expense of the mutant.

However, every time you perform this cycle you increase the chance of a mutant that not only is AZT resistant, but also as viable as the wild type. If you get one of these, further use of AZT would be noneffective.

So, you see? The more we use AZT the larger the risk of a resistant strain, and we would be back on square one. And, if we use AZT on only a portion of he infected population we increase the risk even more.

Not entirely sure how this works with a vaccine... I think that is more epidemology, while I'm a chemist... But in the debate forums I've heard it seems to be taken for granted that the same principles apply, reducing the debate to en ethical one.

I don't have an answer...

Regarding the funding, yeah, NIH does sponsor some research, but the vast majority of the NIH HIV funding goes to basic research into the mechanism of the disease. Of course, if we can understand the mechanism we could possibly develop a vaccine, but the odds of a vaccine being developed in the foreseeable future slim to none... The pharmas, on the hand, spend quite a bit of money on research towards a cure, and that's where I thikn the breakthrough will come.