According to this article, it was discovered as an epidemic June 5, 1981.

Since AIDS is a virus, there's not really a cure, because viruses don't go away. There can only be a treatment, and the same treatment doesn't work for everybody. But I believe that one day, it might be treatable.

AIDS is not a virus, it's a syndrome. HIV is the virus. It's easy to get rid of AIDS, just get rid of all the symptoms that are associated with it. Like every disease, there's usually a lack of something. If you stop lacking in that certain area, you shouldn't have the disease anymore.

---

And thanks, Cerebral Stasis, for answering my question.

I really hope they do find a cure for HIV and AIDS, but I am in two minds about whether or not it'll happen. It just seems impossible. But then, if you're really worried about this stuff, then there is the quick answer: DON'T HAVE SEX!

This post has been edited by NDPA: Jul 27 2006, 08:41 PM

You are absolutely right. I do not mean to offend anyone with the disease, but its very unlikely to find a definite cure for something that mutates like the AIDS virus. All the vaccines and medicine being researched and developed right now is not to cure the virus....but to slow down the its progress.

Unfortunately you are wrong. I have had many 'discussions' with my mother on this topic. She is a Christian and as such believes that animals do not think, feel etc and are only here to serve mankind. Being that I am qualified in Animal Care and Husbandry I have studied a lot and read a lot of research on the subject of 'animal' intelligence and emotion. I would suggest you do the same before you mouth off about something you quite clearly are ignorant about. If you had done some research you might know that 'intelligence' is subjective - you might consider yourself to be smart but to someone else you might seem stupid. My cat is smart by cat standards so he is very intelligent but then he cannot do human mathematics. Why? It's not because he lacks intelligence, it's because he hasn't evolved the capacity to do maths. Why should he have to?! It's not necessary for his species' survival. You might also 'know' that fish don't feel pain but if you had done some reading you would actually know that research has found that fish show similar brain wave patterns and release the same chemicals into their bodies when they are harmed as humans do indicating they have a pain response i.e. they feel pain just like humans! Similar studies have been done on many other animals. If it's got nerves, it feels pain. Even trees have been shown to have a pain response.
As for animals not being able to talk - what, you expect them to be able to speak english?! They do communicate through body language and vocalisation, humans do exactly the same thing. And to think that my cats can understand when I call their names, tell them to get down, tell them to go outside etc and yet most people don't have the foggiest what my cats are trying to tell them - many animals can understand some amount of human speech and yet most humans don't remotely know what animals say - hows that for intelligence?!
Your assumption that animals are not self-aware is also unfounded. Like I said, try doing a little reading and you will find a lot of research that shows quite the opposite. Here are some articles: http://www.strato.net/~crvny/sa03002.htm, http://scienceweek.com/2005/sa050225-2.htm, http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~allanr/mirror.html etc. Of course, once again, like intelligence self-awareness is subjective.
Intinct is also subjective. What many humans class as thought is in actual fact instinct. Anything that is not a learned behaviour is instinct - speech, walking, urinating, defecating, sex, smiling, the need for interaction, eating, problem solving, tool use etc etc etc - all instinctive behaviours. People might be arrogant enough to elevate themselves above other animals but the fact remains humans ARE animals.

As for no aids cure - not if Bill Gates has anything to do with it!

Look how long we have had the common cold, if hiv and aids was discovered in 81 in comparison to the common cold it will be a great deal of time before anyone becomes remotly close.

You mean you have to choose between a life without sex and a gruesome death? Tough call. - Fry


I was simply giving my opinion for the sake of argument, not putting my foot down and proclaiming that I was completely correct.


Is it necessary for our survival? By "Intelligence", I meant the ability to understand that the world is more than the present and to change one's ways in order to specifically affect that. For example, a mouse who raids a farmer's oats only thinks of a need for food, while the farmer thinks of the diseases passed by said mouse, the possible loss of lifestock, and the eventual economic downfall that would ensue.


I never once claimed that animals did not feel pain, because I knew that they did.



I assumed that one would understand that by "language" I meant the ability to express personal ideas and opinions. True, animals talk, but, unless I'm mistaken, they don't discuss why the sky is blue or chat about their dreams. They simply express useful information, as computers do.



I'm not saying that animals don't have any primitive emotions or personalities, because I know that they do. As for the pidgeon thing, I hadn't been aware of that article (and had only read to the contrary thus far), although from the video, it looks to me like, during it's constant movement, the pidgeon just happened to notice the mark on it's bib by chance, rather than by realizing that it's mirror image had said mark.

I didn't intend to debate animal rights, in any case. I'm just saying that I think that the sacrifice of animal life is worth saving human lives, especially since the animals are not intentionally tortured or put in pain (they are simply used to harvest results in as painless a way as possible). Animals kill animals below themselves on the food chain. Since we also are animals and are pretty much at the top of the food chain, we can kill animals and not feel as though we are being any less than what we are - animals. If one debates that as the highest life form of the planet, we should simply know better, one could consider everything we do to harm animals. For example, we spray our crops, which kills or harms certain creatures, but if we did not, said creatures would eat our food and not give a second thought on the matter. If one's house becomes infested with ants, one can either kill those ants or allow them to destroy one's food. Life is all about the will and need to survive another day, and just because we have an intellectual advantage over other creatures does not mean we shouldn't use it to achieve that goal. Animals with sharp claws and teeth don't hesistate to use their advantages over us, so why should we hesistate to use our advantage (brain power) over them?

One cannot live life passively - it just doesn't work. In order to live, one must create and destroy. There's no way to avoid that. The difference is that we have a higher priority to guarantee the creation and continuation of our own species versus that of another species.

For example, cows. They live a life of bliss. We humans put them out in fields, medicate them, and guarantee their survival. In return, they give us their meat at a certain point of their lives. If they were to run free in the wild, chances are they would never reach that point on their own (or most wouldn't, in any case), yet living with humans, they are given a life of bliss, doing whatever they like, given all the food they could want. True, they have to pay a capital price at the end, but it seems to me as though it is all worthwhile.

Humans are, thanks to evolution, omnivores. This means that, because nature said so, we can eat both animals and plants. Eating animals the "natural way" means we run them down, rip their throat out, and then devour their corpse. These days, we have "humane" ways of killing, namely a gunshot to the head in order to kill the animal without inflicting pain. Now when it comes to tests, such as growing an ear on a rat's face, the creature does not feel pain because there is growth, not decay. In the case of vaccine testing in which a rat is given a disease and then the cure, the scientists assume that the cure will work. In the unlikely event that it is not, the animal is quickly "put out of it's misery" in order to be tested for the reason that the vaccine didn't work. Drugs aren't just randomly pumped into animals until one combination works, every experiment has to have a purpose and reasonable proof that the vaccine being tested will work. It's not an animal torture-fest. Hunting is probably much more of an activity that causes animal pain, and yet that's not illegal (and why should it be? humans, according to instinct, should be able to hunt).

Let's assume for a moment that bacteria can feel pain, simply for the sake of discussion. Should we stop trying to kill off bacteria to save human lives because of this? Are billions of single-celled organisms worth the lives of millions of multi-cellular ones? Chances are you think "no." Well, why not? Shouldn't bacteria have the same rights as any other living creature? What gives you the right to decide?

The only way to be fair is to throw away all philosophy and technology and just live like animals - no vaccines, no weapons, etc. This would not only mean that the human race as