[nfitz]

Aids infects about 2.5 million a year, and kills about 2 million. Malaria infects about 250 million a year and kills about one million a year. The numbers above are $100 million a year for Malaria vaccine compared to $600 million a year for Aids vaccine. That's $100 per every dead Malaria victim, and $300 for every dead Aids victim.

Meanwhile, the US government in the 1990s was paying about $2 billion for each B-2 bomber. Can't you just simply agree that both are underfunded! I can't think of any other viruses that kill over 1 million people per year except tuberculosis.

 

[Glen]

I tend to dislike these comparative arguments when it comes to research. Not that there is not valid points to be made. The truth of the matter is that discoveries made along the way to combating either virus will, and probably, be applicable to the other.

In this regard, finding a vaccine for AIDS might have wider ranging benefits. Only because underlying its ability to survive is its ability to mutate. As such to successfully target the HIV virus one must find a common mechanism which would also have a higher probaility to be found among other virus's. With non or slow mutating virus's, it is easier to pinpoint pathognomonic features.

 

[Brandon716]

I know very little about malaria, but is the reason why so many people die in Africa, where its predominantly a problem, because medicines aren't available to treat malaria?

 

[Hydrogen]

Malaria can be treated with quinine, HIV cannot. Are you really comparing the two?

Quinine has been largely replaced by other treatments since the 1940's. Nevertheless, there still are a million deaths from malaria a year and tens of millions more infections.

Comparisons are unfortunate, but so is special selection. HIV infections can be prevented by education far more effectively than malaria. All too often it is politics that gets in the way of defining and transmitting that particular effort.

Throwing money at problems does not always make them go away. To say that something is "underfunded" is somewhat amibiguous. It's certainly not intended as an attack on HIV/AIDS research. Billions of dollars have been spent on cancer research since the 1970's, and cancer has not been eliminated. That does not mean that spending the money on research was necessarily wrong; it may suggest that the research questions that initiated that spending were not necessarily the right ones.

At some point, a triage approach must be taken with respect to certain diseases. There is good evidence to suggest that rates of HIV infection can continue to be reduced considerably by way of education. I doubt that hundreds of millions of dollars are necessary to promote this particular approach. Informed personal choices and actions can play a very central role in reducing HIV infection.

 

[digi]

Informed personal choices and actions can play a very central role in reducing HIV infection.

true, too bad there are/were so many governments hell bent on denying the disease even existed. Look at reagan for an example.

 

[Brandon716]

Why is HIV more preventable? If the numbers are true, the death rate of HIV is far higher for those that contract it. As far as prevention, that is up for debate. I don't think HIV is more preventable than malaria.

Suppose these statements were true:

HIV is more preventable than malaria.

Malaria is more treatable than HIV.

HIV may be more preventable, but its many times more deadly for those that contract it and still isn't that "treatable" despite recent advances.

Okay.. So what if they are?

We need to put more effort into finding a cure for both, its insane so little are spent on both vaccines.

Besides a cure, what would really help much of Africa, which is still fairly tribal in nature, is the creation of a health care system in the many African nations and upgrading their education systems. That's largely up to their own governments and people, but yes the west can help them. Otherwise spending on drug treatment is useless if there isn't a core system that can be created that is home-grown and self-sustainable.

 

[Brandon716]

You know, the more I keep reading about malaria, the more I believe you just injected malaria into the discussion to detract from discussion about an HIV vaccine discussion.

According to the CDC, malaria is very treatable.

Out of 300-350 million people that contract it every year, 1 million die from it.

http://www.cdc.gov/Malaria/faq.htm

I'm not trying to belittle malaria now, but seeing that it can be treated, it seems a little unfair to compare to HIV that can sit dormant for many, many years before it surfaces as a complication and you can contract it even when its undetectable for the first few months.

That, and considering that HIV was a certain death sentence for EVERYONE who got it until cocktails came along in the late 90's, and that only extends life.

We need more research overall, but I am tired of distractions from the topic at hand. Bringing up completely irrelevant points doesn't serve anyone good.

Yes HIV vaccine research is underfunded, and since that's the only disease we're talking about lets stay on topic...

 

[adma]

Quinine doesn't work? Oh, darn. Now I can't drink my Schweppes Tonic Water and feel like a confident little bugger

 

[afransen]

Seems like HIV is a sexy disease to support research toward--like breast cancer. Both kill rich people. Not many rich people die from malaria, though.


Malaria is gaining ground in that regard with initiatives like Spread the Net.

 

[jks]

I doubt a vaccine can really cure both. I am also skeptical because should a cure actually appear, the Pharmaceutical companies are NOT likely to realease it!! WHY?? Simply because it is far more profitable to treat cancer, or malaria, or HIV than curing it. If you release a cure, a person will buy it once, end of story! If there is no cure, one must pay thousands in treatment. I don't even know if its covered with OHIP here in Canada.

I mean, my grandmother has a recipe for an aloe vera-made drink that will stop the spread of cancer. It helped her sister, who had breast cancer, much more than any chemicals or radiation did. Chemicals and radiation may kill cancer cells, but you're also hurting your own cells.

 

[Hydrogen]

true, too bad there are/were so many governments hell bent on denying the disease even existed. Look at reagan for an example.

Even today there is fear about supporting open sex education (as mentioned earlier) because of a pervasive belief that it will encourage sexual activity.

 

[Hydrogen]

You know, the more I keep reading about malaria, the more I believe you just injected malaria into the discussion to detract from discussion about an HIV vaccine discussion.

I brought up malaria.

If you want to engage in what appears to be your little paranoia parade, go right ahead. If you bother to read my posts you would see that I have pointed out your failure to provide a definition of appropriate funding - as you have suggested that research was underfunded. Maybe you want to discuss this accusation a little further?

What I also pointed out is that there are diseases such as malaria which have killed tens of millions with relatively little funding for prevention or cure. A sizable portion of those who die from malaria are children. Most victims of malaria live in some of the poorest nations on earth. AIDS deaths in those countries (where the diseases coexist) simply fit the pattern established by malaria long ago: the people are generally poor, live far away from us, and are not terribly newsworthy.

Funding for HIV/AIDS research literally exploded when the disease became established in Western nations, and when it was understood that it infected heterosexuals as well. So before you think that my questioning of your accusation about such research being underfunded is somehow misinformed, think again. I was around and of age when AIDS appeared, and I lost two friends to the disease in 1989. I'd love to see this disease eradicated, but I'd like to see lot's of killer diseases defeated.

The reality is that there is only so much money and so many people to do this work. If the transmission of HIV can be slowed now by education (and there is evidence that this works), then I say educate more. There's no time to wait around and see whether a five year promise comes true or not.

 

[Hydrogen]

I doubt a vaccine can really cure both. I am also skeptical because should a cure actually appear, the Pharmaceutical companies are NOT likely to realease it!! WHY?? Simply because it is far more profitable to treat cancer, or malaria, or HIV than curing it. If you release a cure, a person will buy it once, end of story! If there is no cure, one must pay thousands in treatment. I don't even know if its covered with OHIP here in Canada.

So how do you explain all the other vaccines readily available? Vaccines don't cure diseases generally, they prevent them. So long as there are new human being appearing on the scene, and so long as the disease remains active, there will be a ready market for such a vaccine.

I mean, my grandmother has a recipe for an aloe vera-made drink that will stop the spread of cancer. It helped her sister, who had breast cancer, much more than any chemicals or radiation did. Chemicals and radiation may kill cancer cells, but you're also hurting your own cells.

Why is your grandmother not marketing her supposed treatment?

 

[Brandon716]

HIV isn't a rich man's disease considering its still primarily a disease that affects the African continent. The only movement in the west really came from gay rights advocates that had to fight, tooth and nail, for noteriety.

Then in the west it became known as a disease everyone could contract once straights realized they could get it...

I don't buy the argument that HIV is better funded because its a "rich mans disease", its simply not true.

 

[afransen]

Why is your grandmother not marketing her supposed treatment?

First, it would be illegal to market it as a cancer treatment. Secondly, I doubt it does anything.