Quake3World

riddla

It's ok, Riddla has some sort of strange hate-on for me.

BACK ON TOPIC

I hear Africa has a bit of an AIDS problem...

riddla wrote:Oh I see now, you must have HIV.

and I really wouldn't know since I've never been tested.

I would seriously doubt it though.

edit: Anyone ever been tested for HIV or AIDS? If so, was it out of a scare or just for the heck of it?

Jackal wrote:It's ok, Riddla has some sort of strange hate-on for me.

BACK ON TOPIC

I hear Africa has a bit of an AIDS problem...

Those darn crazy Africans, they just won't stop having sex, even though we took their condoms away!

Jackal wrote:

riddla wrote:Oh I see now, you must have HIV.

and I really wouldn't know since I've never been tested.

I would seriously doubt it though.

edit: Anyone ever been tested for HIV or AIDS? If so, was it out of a scare or just for the heck of it?

I got tested just for the heck of it once.

Jackal wrote: Dude, whatever you say. HIV and AIDS are different, go read about it. lol and your last comment is completely assanine.

riddla is correct. The difference between HIV and AIDS is the CD4 count.

Tsakali_ wrote:we're fucking up the balance

fucking hippie...

Sanction wrote:

Jackal wrote: Dude, whatever you say. HIV and AIDS are different, go read about it. lol and your last comment is completely assanine.

riddla is correct. The difference between HIV and AIDS is the CD4 count.

HIV is a virus that does in fact affect the CD4 count of T cells but it certainly is not AIDS. That would be like saying a tumor is automatically cancer, which isn't the case.

Sanction wrote:

tnf wrote:You can hope, but the virus always wins.

What are you talking about? People taking that cocktail have a better immune system than people without HIV.

I'm talking in terms of 'cure'.

Jackal wrote:
HIV is a virus that does in fact affect the CD4 count of T cells but it certainly is not AIDS. That would be like saying a tumor is automatically cancer, which isn't the case.

When the CD4 count drops low enough it is AIDS. Nothing else is different about it. Where's your information coming from?

Jackal wrote:edit: Anyone ever been tested for HIV or AIDS? If so, was it out of a scare or just for the heck of it?

I've been tested as part of a life insurance application. Pretty standard.

Sanction wrote:

Jackal wrote:
HIV is a virus that does in fact affect the CD4 count of T cells but it certainly is not AIDS. That would be like saying a tumor is automatically cancer, which isn't the case.

When the CD4 count drops low enough it is AIDS. Nothing else is different about it. Where's your information coming from?

It was coming from wikipedia, which I know isn't very reliable, so I called up a buddy in med school. He said that AIDS is most often the end affect of HIV but they aren't the same thing.

Jackal's right. HIV and AIDS are most assuredly not the same thing. HIV is a virus. AIDS is a symptomatic disease. Sympoms of HIV infection don't exclusively correspond with symptoms of AIDS.

In the context of the "cure" that's being discussed, though, I think we can use the two interchangeably.

Jackal wrote: It was coming from wikipedia, which I know isn't very reliable, so I called up a buddy in med school. He said that AIDS is most often the end affect of HIV but they aren't the same thing.

And you still have absolutely no idea how they are different.

Curing someone with HIV does not automatically mean you can cure someone with AIDS.

How hard is that?

riddla wrote:

werldhed wrote:In the context of the "cure" that's being discussed, though, I think we can use the two interchangeably.

ding ding we have a weiner :icon26:

Yea, you were so sure of yourself that you changed the thread title so your argument would hold water.

lol internet

riddla wrote:

R00k wrote:Curing someone with HIV does not automatically mean you can cure someone with AIDS.

How hard is that?

If this treatment proves valid, you'll get to eat those words.

That is incorrect.
It will not change the basic fact that HIV Cure != AIDS Cure.

Just because you code a patch that fixes two bugs, does not mean that any patch which fixes one bug will automatically fix the other.

riddla wrote:

R00k wrote:

riddla wrote: ding ding we have a weiner :icon26:

Yea, you were so sure of yourself that you changed the thread title so your argument would hold water.

sure thing champ, changing the topic for clarity because of some pathetic nitpick which was a red herring all along is such a bad move.

It was a red herring of a nitpick until you decided to start arguing it.

RIDDLA WITH THE F5

scathing. it's ok that you feel that you got pounded in this thread man, really. poor kid

R00k wrote:

riddla wrote:

R00k wrote:Curing someone with HIV does not automatically mean you can cure someone with AIDS.

How hard is that?

If this treatment proves valid, you'll get to eat those words.

That is incorrect.
It will not change the basic fact that HIV Cure != AIDS Cure.

Just because you code a patch that fixes two bugs, does not mean that any patch which fixes one bug will automatically fix the other.

It should cure AIDS. The body ought to be able to right its own T cell levels without the virus around. On the other hand, a cure for AIDS does not mean a cure for HIV.

werldhed wrote:

R00k wrote:

riddla wrote: If this treatment proves valid, you'll get to eat those words.

That is incorrect.
It will not change the basic fact that HIV Cure != AIDS Cure.

Just because you code a patch that fixes two bugs, does not mean that any patch which fixes one bug will automatically fix the other.

It should cure AIDS. The body ought to be able to right its own T cell levels without the virus around. On the other hand, a cure for AIDS does not mean a cure for HIV.

But will a cure for HIV necessarily cure all the symptoms associated with AIDS?

At this point I'm half genuinely curious, and half wanting to nitpick this down to the most trivial detail just to keep riddla refreshing the page every 60 seconds.

uh oh... an aids cure... this means a lot to wood pushin' fag0ts like piddla.