I just want to point out that "Magic" Johnson has had HIV/AIDS since 1991. Any possibility that if you have money that you can actually purchase an existing "cure" or a medium that counteracts its adverse effects OR an alternative immunodeficiency device of some sort?

I'm rather convinced that, after having this as well as many other diseases and epidemics having been around for long enough, that we do have some sort of countering agents or even cures for these diseases, but as I think many propogandists would like to say, it's not economically viable to throw out a cure because 1.) the medical sector will not make as much money due to a lack of a need for symptomatic medicines and/or treatments, 2.) our worldwide population will explode as we have less and less to keep our numbers in check (if you want to look at it from the numbers game perspective), 3.) and there isn't enough of an audience to warrant a lucrative payoff by introducing cures. Once we have the cure for AIDS, no one is going to need it; therefore, why not keep a stimulus of the economy going instead of actually ridding the world of an epidemic? I'm sure that most people will read this and think I'm much of the *bottom*, but in all reality, wouldn't you think that this makes sense as far as viewing it on a larger scale? No one wants their parents, friends, relatives, or significant others to die if there is a cure for what ails them, but on a larger scale, it's just one less mouth to feed, one less person to support, one less person on welfare, one less person to account for on paper. It's an inhumane way of thinking, much like how the practical mind would maximize efficiency of our existence by employing the survival of the fittest and the most productive by activating a genocide of the weaker of our species. But as Socrates, Aldous Huxley, and George Orwell, as well as many other authors and philosophers of our time have pointed out, we are degrading ourselves from reaching a utopia and an ultra-efficient society.

So with all that being said, maybe we'll actually find a cure, or maybe someone is being paid enough to keep quiet about a cure we already have. On the grand scheme of things, it makes sense for the latter, so it wouldn't surprise me if we are continually teased with a cure for AIDS, a cure for cancer, or a cure for anything, really.

One argument against that thought is the fact that we have and issue vaccines for yellow fever, tetanus, TB, and other diseases that kill. Then again, those are diseases that are airborne and that could wipe out a good number of us rather quickly, decreasing our populace as opposed to keeping us in check.

My two cents.