"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)

George M. Carter gmc0 at ix.netcom.com
Sat Sep 19 11:04:33 EST 1998


ateasd5941 at aol.com (ATeasd5941) wrote:

>In article <6trbbf$gja at sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, gmc0 at ix.netcom.com (George M.
>Carter) writes:

>>>>>>>>> Long-term survivors have usually tried many different treatments,
>>> and found combinations which work for them.  

>>  The reality is, most infected people WILL progress to AIDS. 
> Not treating at a certain point in the
>>progression is a fatally stupid mistake.<<<<<<<<<

>If an effective treatment is developed for HIV that would prevent
>AID's from developing, wouldn't we have given birth to a new
>chronic disease? 

Your question is unclear.  The disease exists.  Indeed, results often
in a chronic period of more or less symptom-free infection.   Thus, it
can be passed on to subsequent generations.  And indeed, sex continues
to  happen.

>If so, how would it be prevented from being
>passed on to the next generations? 

Excellent question.  There are many options that can help prevent a
mother with HIV from passing the virus to her kid.  First, about 75%
of kids will be born negative to begin with.  Second, some treatments
may help to reduce that risk further (e.g., AZT -- although I hope we
can find better.)

>I am assuming that the
>people who had it would want the same rights as anyone
>with any other chronic disease.
>Is anything other than a complete cure ethically right?

Ethically right?  A cure is the optimal solution!!  No question!  But
if by this you're suggesting that we *wait* til a cure is achieved
before people can obtain treatment, I disagree.

		George M. Carter





More information about the Immuno mailing list