The CDC Admitted That HIV Can’t Be Transmitted If You’re Undetectable

[Skalm]

He was referring to the group

Still not 'extinction', wtf are schools teaching?

We don't kill off animals and plants with "bad genetics" or "diseases". Like humans, our animal companions and domesticated livestock are treated by vets when they contract something.

What do you do with a pet that contracts rabies? Pretty sure you kill it. What about cancer/tumors that can't be treated? Pretty sure you kill it.

Oh wait, its called putting it down. So that makes it ok because you use a different phrase.

Genetic defects range from the completely mild to the extremely debilitating, but we don't kill people for it, and it's not important if in the past that was okay (depends on the society). It is not okay to purposely execute people because they have a manageable condition.

You need some help.

I didn't say people killed other people in the past. If a person got cancer before it was treatable, they died. They were not killed. This prevented them from passing it on to 5 children.

If a person had a child with a severe mental disability, this child did not grow up and have children. Thus the genetic defect did not get passed on.

It's called living in reality, not la la land. The only way to 'cure' a lot of shit going around, is to prevent its ability to propagate.

[gaymer77]

It's not extinction...you might want to look up what that word means. Maybe you mean eradication? It would eradicate the virus. It would not cause humans to go extinct. Unless you are classifying a person with a disease as not a human, but some other sort of species all its own?

Do you think that if an animal has a dangerous/deadly virus, that can be spread to other animals/humans, it would just be left alone, giving it the opportunity to spread said virus? It is ok to kill off animals/plants with bad genetics and/or diseases (to prevent it from being passed), but when it comes to people it is all of a sudden evil? That's somewhat hypocritical.

In the past, if someone had a disease/genetic defect. They died. They did not get the opportunity to spread that to future generations. With the advent of healthcare, many diseases/genetic defects that would have resulted in a persons death, are now made manageable to the point where people can live with them. Which also allows them to pass these defects on. Which increases the occurrences of these defects.

So now you're comparing humans to animals and that we should treat humans the same way we treat animals. Why stop there? Why not raise humans for consumption and slaughter them for food?

[Egomaniac]

Well there is already a cure for HIV (and any other virus for that matter)...people just think it is evil.

If a dog has rabies, you don't keep it around and let it play with your kids...

3edgy5me

/10

[Underverse]

It's not extinction...you might want to look up what that word means. Maybe you mean eradication? It would eradicate the virus. It would not cause humans to go extinct. Unless you are classifying a person with a disease as not a human, but some other sort of species all its own?

Do you think that if an animal has a dangerous/deadly virus, that can be spread to other animals/humans, it would just be left alone, giving it the opportunity to spread said virus? It is ok to kill off animals/plants with bad genetics and/or diseases (to prevent it from being passed), but when it comes to people it is all of a sudden evil? That's somewhat hypocritical.

In the past, if someone had a disease/genetic defect. They died. They did not get the opportunity to spread that to future generations. With the advent of healthcare, many diseases/genetic defects that would have resulted in a persons death, are now made manageable to the point where people can live with them. Which also allows them to pass these defects on. Which increases the occurrences of these defects.

Except if you miss one person, the disease could return in full strength. And other diseases frequently jump from animals to humans. The better solution is to formulate a vaccine or retroactive cure, and then apply that knowledge to future diseases, which most certainly will exist. HIV is only one of the first among many.

Besides, people with HIV can live long and productive lives. These people are still valuable.

[jackofwind]

Still not 'extinction', wtf are schools teaching?


What do you do with a pet that contracts rabies? Pretty sure you kill it. What about cancer/tumors that can't be treated? Pretty sure you kill it.

Oh wait, its called putting it down. So that makes it ok because you use a different phrase.




I didn't say people killed other people in the past. If a person got cancer before it was treatable, they died. They were not killed. This prevented them from passing it on to 5 children.

If a person had a child with a severe mental disability, this child did not grow up and have children. Thus the genetic defect did not get passed on.

It's called living in reality, not la la land. The only way to 'cure' a lot of shit going around, is to prevent its ability to propagate.

Patently untrue.

1. If a person got cancer in the ancient world, which was almost an inevitability, it often happened after they had reached adulthood. Innumerable amounts of people who died from cancer still passed their genes on by procreating before they died. PS: Most cancers aren't passed down genetically.

2. In the ancient world people with mental disabilities were often targets for rape and abuse, and were sold as sex slaves to low-level brothels. Many of these people had children.

The same points hold true for the more recent past, especially in the lower social orders.

[Skalm]

genetic defects are not the same as infectious diseases, obviously. you can't get down's syndrome from having sex with a person with down's syndrome. back to infectious diseases, even in the modern world, we still do quarantine infectious people from others. I'm not advocating executing people either, but it's also not a good idea to just do nothing.

Correct, you can't down syndrome from having sex with someone that has it. But if you have a child with that person, your offspring can have it (or their offspring, or theirs). Thus you are passing the defective genetics. If you do not have offspring, you effectively stop that defect from spreading.

In the past, people did not have offspring with these individuals. This prevented the widespread shit we are seeing now.

Look at cancer for fucks sake. It is projected that from 2012 to 2030, the number of worldwide cases are expected to increase by 50%. That is fucking insane. This is because the genetic propensity for cancer is being passed onto offspring. Now, if everyone with cancer all of a sudden stops having kids, its not going to 'cure' cancer. But it would drastically reduce the number of future cases.

'Germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes increase a woman's risk of developing hereditary breast or ovarian cancers. The most commonly mutated gene in people who have cancer is p53. In fact, more than 50% of all cancers involve a missing or damaged p53 gene. Most p53 gene mutations are acquired mutations.'

Bad genetics....

[gaymer77]

What do you do with a pet that contracts rabies? Pretty sure you kill it. What about cancer/tumors that can't be treated? Pretty sure you kill it.

Oh wait, its called putting it down. So that makes it ok because you use a different phrase.

Rabies is an incurable highly contagious disease that also can not be treated or reversed. It can be prevented not treated. HIV can be treated & prevented

I didn't say people killed other people in the past. If a person got cancer before it was treatable, they died. They were not killed. This prevented them from passing it on to 5 children.

Except you don't infect other people with cancer or give birth to babies with cancer just because you have/had it. It just puts your children at a greater risk of developing it.

[Underverse]

Still not 'extinction', wtf are schools teaching?


What do you do with a pet that contracts rabies? Pretty sure you kill it. What about cancer/tumors that can't be treated? Pretty sure you kill it.

Oh wait, its called putting it down. So that makes it ok because you use a different phrase.




I didn't say people killed other people in the past. If a person got cancer before it was treatable, they died. They were not killed. This prevented them from passing it on to 5 children.

If a person had a child with a severe mental disability, this child did not grow up and have children. Thus the genetic defect did not get passed on.

It's called living in reality, not la la land. The only way to 'cure' a lot of shit going around, is to prevent its ability to propagate.

Cancer is generally environmental or random. It's rarely genetic. So, bad example.

I would agree with you that we spend an excessive amount of resources on saving the most physically and mentally handicapped of us. In some cases, I think it's warranted to let someone with severe disabilities die. But this is not one of those cases. Neither is cancer.

[Skalm]

Patently untrue.

1. If a person got cancer in the ancient world, which was almost an inevitability, it often happened after they had reached adulthood. Innumerable amounts of people who died from cancer still passed their genes on by procreating before they died.

Because you can only get cancer after you are an adult...

2. In the ancient world people with mental disabilities were often targets for rape and abuse, and were sold as sex slaves to low-level brothels. Many of these people had children.

Because these rapists/brothels kept and cared for the children from their sex slaves/victims...

[Underverse]

Correct, you can't down syndrome from having sex with someone that has it. But if you have a child with that person, your offspring can have it (or their offspring, or theirs). Thus you are passing the defective genetics. If you do not have offspring, you effectively stop that defect from spreading.

In the past, people did not have offspring with these individuals. This prevented the widespread shit we are seeing now.

Look at cancer for fucks sake. It is projected that from 2012 to 2030, the number of worldwide cases are expected to increase by 50%. That is fucking insane. This is because the genetic propensity for cancer is being passed onto offspring. Now, if everyone with cancer all of a sudden stops having kids, its not going to 'cure' cancer. But it would drastically reduce the number of future cases.

'Germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes increase a woman's risk of developing hereditary breast or ovarian cancers. The most commonly mutated gene in people who have cancer is p53. In fact, more than 50% of all cancers involve a missing or damaged p53 gene. Most p53 gene mutations are acquired mutations.'

Bad genetics....

You're missing context. Let me help you out. Innate p53 mutations are very rare. People with p53 knockouts develop many different types of cancer at a young age and generally die or become very ill before they can pass on their genes.

That is not the same thing as a somatic p53 mutation, which is what the article is referring to. Somatic p53 mutations - mutations that occur in somatic cells (adult body) - are indeed present in a majority of cancers. These mutations are caused by things like smoking, diet, environmental exposure to various carcinogens, and random chance (because many of your cells are dividing and sometimes make mistakes when replicating their DNA). These cannot be passed down to children.

So no, it's not bad genetics. It's bad luck.

[Skalm]

Cancer is generally environmental or random. It's rarely genetic. So, bad example.

I would agree with you that we spend an excessive amount of resources on saving the most physically and mentally handicapped of us. In some cases, I think it's warranted to let someone with severe disabilities die. But this is not one of those cases. Neither is cancer.

Poor genetics leads to a higher chance of having genetic mutatations. Thus, increasing the risk of cancer.

[Underverse]

Because you can only get cancer after you are an adult...

Also not true. Children get cancer all the time. Ever heard of childhood leukemias? They're relatively common, in fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Poor genetics leads to a higher chance of having genetic mutatations. Thus, increasing the risk of cancer.

Your understanding of mutations is incomplete at best.

[ohwell]

Yeah this is something I've suspected for a long time. It's a lot harder to pass HIV than people think, especially for those on medications that control it. It's good to see some validation on it.



That's why we get tested every 6 months. Been going on 7 years now and every six months, like clockwork, we check everything.

There's an HIV positive bar-back that works at the bar I go to and he cut himself really bad in the bathroom one night when I was there drunk and being in the medical field my first instinct was at least to try to instruct him what to do, but then his manager came in who I am also friends with and was acting like it was a quarantine zone. HIV needs to come in contact with a mucus membrane and not all of them work or a breach in the skin and even then you're not guaranteed to contract it. There's some statistic that even if a healthcare worker were to get stuck with an HIV positive person's needle there'd only be a .003% chance of infection with a normal viral load. Also HIV only lives a couple of hours outside of the body. You have a better chance of getting Hep C(since most people in the US are vaccinated against A and B).

[Gorechubz]

What do you do with a pet that contracts rabies? Pretty sure you kill it. What about cancer/tumors that can't be treated? Pretty sure you kill it.

Cancer isn't genetic, so killing people with cancer is just stupid.

Domesticated pets aren't human beings. They enrich our lives, but they don't exactly contribute to the common good. Someone with cancer still can. Never mind that our society believes that human life is an unalienable right.

Oh wait, its called putting it down. So that makes it ok because you use a different phrase.

A sentient being, a human, has a right to decide if they want to live or not. Domesticated animals are not the same.

I didn't say people killed other people in the past. If a person got cancer before it was treatable, they died. They were not killed. This prevented them from passing it on to 5 children.

Cancer isn't a genetic disease.

If a person had a child with a severe mental disability, this child did not grow up and have children. Thus the genetic defect did not get passed on.

Yet they still exist today...

It's called living in reality, not la la land. The only way to 'cure' a lot of shit going around, is to prevent its ability to propagate.

You can prevent diseases from propagating a lot easier than killing people. You can create vaccinations. You can educate people to protect themselves. You don't have to "put them down".

[Skalm]

You're missing context. Let me help you out. Innate p53 mutations are very rare. People with p53 knockouts develop many different types of cancer at a young age and generally die or become very ill before they can pass on their genes.

That is not the same thing as a somatic p53 mutation, which is what the article is referring to. Somatic p53 mutations - mutations that occur in somatic cells (adult body) - are indeed present in a majority of cancers. These mutations are caused by things like smoking, diet, environmental exposure to various carcinogens, and random chance (because many of your cells are dividing and sometimes make mistakes when replicating their DNA). These cannot be passed down to children.

So no, it's not bad genetics. It's bad luck.

Luck is a made up 'thing' for people to try and cope/explain/rationalize something they do not understand. If you have a bad genetic history, it is that much easier for a genetic mutation to occur.

[Underverse]

Luck is a made up 'thing' for people to try and cope/explain/rationalize something they do not understand. If you have a bad genetic history, it is that much easier for a genetic mutation to occur.

You really don't understand genetics or cancer at all. Stop talking about it like you're an expert. Random mutations in somatic cells are responsible for the vast majority of cancers. These mutations often happen during genome replication, when mistakes are sometimes made. Mistakes being made during genome replication is ultimately irreducible beyond luck.

[Skalm]

Cancer isn't genetic, so killing people with cancer is just stupid.

Domesticated pets aren't human beings. They enrich our lives, but they don't exactly contribute to the common good. Someone with cancer still can. Never mind that our society believes that human life is an unalienable right.

Pretty sure Cancer is caused by a genetic mutation...that makes it genetic in my book.

A sentient being, a human, has a right to decide if they want to live or not. Domesticated animals are not the same.

So animals don't have the right to live? Pretty sure animals are sentient beings...

Cancer isn't a genetic disease.

Correct, it is not a Genetic Disease, it is a Genetic Mutation.

Yet they still exist today...

In exponentially higher numbers....

You can prevent diseases from propagating a lot easier than killing people. You can create vaccinations. You can educate people to protect themselves. You don't have to "put them down".

Yeah, you could. The problem is, some stuff can't be vaccinated.

A rapist has HIV...lets just educate him and inform him that he has HIV so he shouldn't rape people anymore because he could give the victims HIV...

[Egomaniac]

Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.

[Skalm]

You really don't understand genetics or cancer at all. Stop talking about it like you're an expert. Random mutations in somatic cells are responsible for the vast majority of cancers. These mutations often happen during genome replication, when mistakes are sometimes made. Mistakes being made during genome replication is ultimately irreducible beyond luck.

or, you have shitty genes, and they do not replicate properly...

- - - Updated - - -

Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.

I'd say it did win...as you played it's game, and let it shit on your board...

[Underverse]

Pretty sure Cancer is caused by a genetic mutation...that makes it genetic in my book.

Correct, it is not a Genetic Disease, it is a Genetic Mutation.

Cancer is not a mutation. It is a collection of disparate diseases with disparate causes that are linked by similar cellular phenotypes - mainly, uncontrollable growth.

Yeah, you could. The problem is, some stuff can't be vaccinated.

Not yet, but eventually, almost definitely.

A rapist has HIV...lets just educate him and inform him that he has HIV so he shouldn't rape people anymore because he could give the victims HIV...

The rapist part is the problem there.

- - - Updated - - -

or, you have shitty genes, and they do not replicate properly...

Proper replication still has an error rate, try again.