you're correct. overall, though (and this is highly subjective, as no hard census was taken prior to and after the last onset of plague), plague killed between 25% and 30% of the population of europe. obviously, certain areas were hit harder than others, but it took a devastating toll on europe.

remember, the mutation that has 'potentially' 'helped' these modern survivors of aids was a localized event. our bodies are constantly mutating, however most of the mutations are deleted and caught by our bodies. somehow, one or two slipped through the cracks in some local area in the 1300's and, 700 years down the road, it's become important.

Nature's a bitch. I learned that at an early age and I've yet to see any explanation that is quite as succinct. Is it a tragedy that some junkie gets AIDS and dies? No, not in my opinion. It's a natural progression.

yes, you're correct. AIDS is a pandemic (although the definitions of epidemic and pandemic are rudimentary to say the least).

as I said in my last post, we as human beings have an amazing knack for stupidity. we're both the most intelligent species on earth and the dumbest species on earth.

it's interesting you mention 'easy to catch' in regards to HIV/AIDS, I read somewhere that in the middle of the 90's, there was a moment when scientists believed that HIV had mutated beyond being simply an STD (which it still primarily is, ignoring transfusions and dirty needles), into an airborne pathogen (in other words, a virus that can spread via aerosol--via sneeze, like flu or the common cold). scary thought.

Yes, and it hasn't. If it did mutate and aerosolize, it would be a completely different animal. Since it has not, I do not think it qualifies as either an epidemic or pandemic. Hence, my statement.

One of my best friends died of Aids-it is a horrible way to go.

Thank God for a cure.

I can't argue with that. the part of me that's pursuing a career in the public health sector believes that everyone should have a chance to live their lives without having to worry about some super-bug killing them and their family. however, the logic in my brain states that we are the sum of every decision that we, as individuals, make. life IS a bitch. sometimes the dice come up snake-eyes.

but fucking up is nothing more than human nature. no matter how much more we evolve, there will be certain members of society who never amount to anything, make life-altering decisions, and die early deaths because of them. we'll never totally weed out these 'risk-takers' (although I almost don't call them that--it's too sterile), and I'm sure there will be two people having this same discussion in 100 years and/or 1000 years if we haven't killed ourselves off by then.

it's a tough issue to slice, that's for sure. agree to disagree, I guess.

(just like the virus debate: alive or not alive? they meet most of the classical requirements, but not all).

the problem I have with issues involving human behavior in regards to public health is that life isn't white and black. the world we live in has a lot of gray areas, ones that allow for discussions like this, ones that even predicate both my responses and your responses.

I agree, if that 'super-bug' can get them without any fault of their own. The fact remains that, sans accidental exposure, you have to seek this virus out through risky behavior. If you contract it through risky behavior, so be it. I view it no differently than I do some guy deciding to go base jumping and his parachute not opening.

And one of the primary reasons that I didn't pursue a career in medicine.

Free, unprotected sex once again! :D

dammit, misspelled 'too.'

I like to call these 'special' members of the gene-pool the shallow-enders. they tend to kill themselves off young, albeit not young enough (a lot of them reproduce, sometimes long enough to leave the example for their cursed offspring).

a decent example; my parents. not to put too much of my personal life on the board, but my parents are the best motivation I have for not ending up in the shallow end like they almost did. my dad and mom have been potheads their entire life, sometimes delving into more 'dangerous' drugs. according to popular psychology, I should never amount to anything. I grew up poor, and everything I have I earned with my two hands and two feet, as well as my brain.

it's the classical nature/nurture. vincent bugliosi and charles manson both have genius-level IQ's (within a few points of each other, IIRC). only difference: bugliosi grows up in an affluent neighborhood to parents who care for him, whereas manson never knows his father, is the son of a prostitute, shuttled from 'relative to relative,' and grows up a sociopath.

is it in the genetics? we don't know. there are those in manson's position that grow up to lead perfectly normal lives, even productive lives as contributers to their communities. there are those who grow up in bugliosi's shoes (jeffrey dahmer comes to mind) that end up possibly worse than manson.

the issue is that we have no clue where the line exists, or even if there IS a line to be drawn. gray area.

it's a passion of mine (obviously, as you can see by a few of my posts)

to my misfortune, I guess :p

Not true. HAART can drop your viral load to undetectable levels, but will only extend your life, not allow you to fully recover.

HIV will eventually develop resistances and mutations to the drugs in your system, and the drugs lose their efficacy over time.

This also assumes that you can afford said treatments which will cost upwards of 10K a year, unless you need salvage therapy from a fusion inhibitor, like Fuseon, which costs over 20K by itself.

Average lifespan is increased by about 8-10 years if on the cocktail, but it is by no means a cure all.

1) HIV only has RNA, not DNA
2) The newest drugs are considered either fusion inhibitors (which prevent the drug from fusing with the lymphocyte once it has attached), or attachment inhibitors, which prevent the virus from locking on to specific receptors on your T-Cells.
3) You're right about the viral mutations. HIV is a very quirky virus in that it makes a ton of errors in its replication process. This also causes a big problem with treatment, but you can't really prevent the virus from mutating unless your entire patient base is completely compliant with their regimen, infects no one else, and doesn't exchange viral strains with other infected parties.
4) Genetics play a huge factor in how well you can manage the disease. A portion of the European population has a mutation in the CCR5 Delta 32 receptor that actually makes it substantially more difficult for them to get HIV, and, if they have two such mutations, can be completely immune to infection.
5) AIDS drugs have horrid side effects--liver toxicity, chronic diarrhea, fever, constant nausea, are among a few.

Thanks, Mr. 'Hamas' Jenkins. I'm a little confused on point 1, though. My understanding was that the HIV virus actually converts RNA to DNA which then combines with the host cell DNA. Incorrect?

FAX