Glad to see the thread took a turn about religion discussion.
😐
I was hoping everyone would be as happy about a cure as I was. I mean, this was the first time I said, "yes!" out loud when I read about this. I've been wanting AIDS to be cured for a long time. Fer realz.
Originally posted by Robtard
Probably, as only Mormons can get into heaven, so they say.
No, they say that all people go to heaven...just not the best kind unless you're a good Mormon. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
Glad to see the thread took a turn about religion discussion.😐
I was hoping everyone would be as happy about a cure as I was. I mean, this was the first time I said, "yes!" out loud when I read about this. I've been wanting AIDS to be cured for a long time. Fer realz.
No, they say that all people go to heaven...just not the best kind unless you're a good Mormon. 🙂
I always wanted it cured for 1 longer than you!!!
Oh and I think Robtard was referring to South Park, where only Mormons go to heaven.
Question: Is there a danger of exaggerating compassion fatigue by telling people that "AIDS is cured" without mentioning that the millions dying in Africa have no chance (that is, probability of 1X10^-9%) of actually being given that cure?
Sure it's nice, but it is a bit like saying that we have biocomputers simply because there was a recent breakthrough in the language of cells.
Originally posted by Zampanó
Question: Is there a danger of exaggerating compassion fatigue by telling people that "AIDS is cured" without mentioning that the millions dying in Africa have no chance (that is, probability of 1X10^-9%) of actually being given that cure?Sure it's nice, but it is a bit like saying that we have biocomputers simply because there was a recent breakthrough in the language of cells.
If being happy about curing a disease that afflicts millions of people is bad, sue me.
Obviously, this is something we all should be happy about. No medical breakthrough is ever reachable to everyone: it's always for just select few in controlled studies.
Just think of how many doctors and "mutants" will line up to get this treatment the people, once we have a better process (much lower mortality rate).
Originally posted by Zampanó
Question: Is there a danger of exaggerating compassion fatigue by telling people that "AIDS is cured" without mentioning that the millions dying in Africa have no chance (that is, probability of 1X10^-9%) of actually being given that cure?Sure it's nice, but it is a bit like saying that we have biocomputers simply because there was a recent breakthrough in the language of cells.
Well it's barely a cure, the procedure they used kills 2/3 of the people that undergo it. What we do have is the biggest step forward in over a decade.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well it's barely a cure, the procedure they used kills 2/3 of the people that undergo it. What we do have is the biggest step forward in over a decade.
My gripe about this thread is that, with respect DDM, this is no more a cure for AIDS than expert systems are working AIs. What's more, my concern is that in the medical and philanthropic arenas, the typically sloppy "science journalism" displayed here may actually cause harm. If the alert that AIDS has been cured fully enters the mainstream, it is possible that charitable giving* may slow out of a premature sense of accomplishment.
From the general public
Originally posted by Zampanó
This is exactly my point. This is one step. It is an important one, like the step from the loading platform onto the flight deck of the shuttle, but there are still many more tasks to perform.My gripe about this thread is that, with respect DDM, this is no more a cure for AIDS than expert systems are working AIs. What's more, my concern is that in the medical and philanthropic arenas, the typically sloppy "science journalism" displayed here may actually cause harm. If the alert that AIDS has been cured fully enters the mainstream, it is possible that charitable giving* may slow out of a premature sense of accomplishment.
From the general public
No, it's a cure, plain and simple.
There's no way around that. It is a plain jane cure.
If you wanted a proper comparison, it would be like a perfect AI system that crash, randomly, on 66% of it's tests, but still passed all tests (if you got lucky.)
And, criticizing a tech blog's blog post on a successful cure for AIDS is hardly noteworthy when they cited to better sources. If you want medical journal level of discussion, read the medical journal. If you want a very quick dumb version of it, read a tech blog. 😬
If your only purpose is to belittle one of the biggest medical breakthroughs in the last 10 years, then there's no purpose in being in this thread.
No, he actually has a good point. This may be a "cure", but to most people who suffer from AIDS, its a cure in the purely academic sense; it can never be practically used towards the extermination of the disease. Its like when organ transplants were discovered to work for identical twins; it was now technically "possible" to do an organ transplant, but until immune suppressants were later discovered, it really was only "possible" to a very small amount of people in special circumstances.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it's a cure, plain and simple.There's no way around that. It is a plain jane cure.
If you wanted a proper comparison, it would be like a perfect AI system that crash, randomly, on 66% of it's tests, but still passed all tests (if you got lucky.)
And it only runs on 1% of the worlds computers (the odds of being a bone marrow match to one of the few people in the world that is immune and offering bone marrow is probably far less than that) and rather than crashing it destroys the computer completely and only one trial with the AI has ever been done so far.
Yes you call it a cure but I agree that it is very misleading. When people hear "we have a cure for HIV" the think "I can now be cured of HIV" which isn't even remotely the case.