Cure For HIV/AIDS?

[BFritz21]

(11-20-2015, 12:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because they could charge more for the cure than treatment of the symptoms.

If there was anything to your theory then we would not have chemotherapy.

We also would not have cures to ANY disease because the same logic should apply to every other disease in addition to cancer, right?  People who suffer from polio live long lives that require constant treatment.  Why would we have done away with polio?  why would we have cures to any disease?

I still say that the cure would be more valuable than the cost of treatment, especially since many people with cancer die instead of living and paying for treatment for years.

lol!

Chemotherapy actually is what makes his theory valid!

I don't know how many times I have to explain chemotherapy to you, but chemotherapy isn't exactly a "cure," but rather is just a poison that kills most things it comes into contact with in the body, but the hope is that it kills the cancer before it kills too much of the body.

Do you really think a "cure" would cause hair loss, vomiting, diarrhea, pain, fatigue, mouth and throat sores, sexual and reproductive issues, and I'm sure there are many more side effects I'm forgetting?

The money is made off of the drugs to counter all of those side effects.

A cure wouldn't be more valuable because 1 a cure is a one time thing and 2 they would just keep coming up with cheaper ways to make the cure since it can't be copyrighted.  

What's hilarious is you just said (and have many times before) that chemotherapy is a cure, yet your last sentence states that a cure would be more valuable!  If chemotherapy is a cure, why isn't it more valuable than itself!?