What if?

The other night I was thinking about people with AIDS and I was wondering…

With all the advances in nanotechnology today, what if they created a nanobot that could go and seek out and identify AIDS virus and destroy it. This same concept could be applied to cancerous cells, or various other illnesses. Would they market this new technology to help people recover from these diseases or would they keep it secret? I mean think about all the money the pharmaceutical companies make from the medicines they produce to treat the symptoms of these diseases…

If this topic interests you, please vote in the poll. I’m curious to see what you all think. :wink:

no, they would not

They would not keep it a secret because they are greedy. What good is an invention/discovery if you don’t sell it?

and contrary to popular beliefs, morals do exist in other people besides yourselves.

Well, this is a poll loaded like a .44 Magnum if I ever saw one.

AIDS is actually a bio-weapon developed by the Russian government during the cold war. They have had the cure all along. The reason they haven’t given the world the cure is that then we would all know that they started it all…


Where’d you hear/read that? I’m not sure if you’re serious here or if you’re being sarcastic lol…

utter crap I hope this was supposed to be funny

Now of course they would not keep it secret, the market is simply too big… So No, but simply out of a economic point.

They’d be famous, rich and well respected in the scientific community. And if one person can do it, others can too, so they’d want to be the first to market.

And, as vk says, some companies aren’t pure evil

Yeah, I wasn’t being serious

If they did it would definitely put Trojan out of business :stuck_out_tongue:

i voted for the first though, my opinnion is that they would not keep it a secret, just would be greedy! :wink:

If a pharmaceutical company ever developed a cure for AIDS they would probably keep that silent. Much money can be made through the selling of AIDS prevention, AIDS slowers etc. and they wouldn’t quickly give up on that gold mine.

Supposedly, these same companies have a vaccination against most small-time diseases, but selling it would severely limit their profit.

In similar vein, I once had a discussion with a friend over how some docters and pharmaceutical companies subscribe their patients to medicine they don’ need or which are largely placebo’s, soley for profit.

sigh The phramaceutic industry has us convinced that a couple of pills can solve all our problems… Fools we are, honestly.

The thing is, most people don’t want to realize morals are relative, not absolute.

They would hide it of course! That’s because of Jews, who controls the world! And you can’t forget, Illuminati are between us! Not to mention, that Vatican is in fact controlling all of mafia around the world. And, and! USA never landed on Moon!

ROTFL :slight_smile:

Well, I know a few doctors and other medical specialists personally, and on top of that, being a parent of small kids, have dealt with quite a few doctors professionally. Frankly, this is a ridiculously naive statement. If you ever come across any medical doctor that would purposefully prescribe any medicine to their patients and actually profit from that, you should immidiately report them to your local authorities. In just about every civilased country that would be against the law, even here in South Africa. In fact this has happened in the past, and such doctors have had their licences revoked.
To say that this is the norm amongst medical practitioners is blowing it out of proportion. By law, in just about every country, a medical doctor may not financially profit from prescribing any company’s products to their patients.
Quite frankly, if you have a degree in medicine, you are bound to make more than enough money without having to resort to fraudulant practices.

Personally I wouldn’t be surprised if the cure already existed but was kept closed for the public. There was always “us and them”.

For some leisure reading, anybody can google out “beck blood electrifier” “rife waves” “tesla ray” … and read all sort of fictional or nonfictional or conspiracy or … … whatever stories and make up their own minds.

… ignorance is bliss, they say.

Wow. Tesla rays, cold war germ warfare, I don’t know. There is a book which is quite controversial, called The River, which chronicled the invention of the polio vaccine.and the trials which took place along the Congo river. Apparently, the first polio vaccines were cultured in monkey kidneys, from the local region. Some of these monkeys had what came to be known as simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV). This was known, supposedly, yet the vaccine was made with this kidney substrate for quite some time, with the possibility that infected kidneys were used, it mutated, they used it anyway, mainly in poor countries and this caused the spread of HIV.

Thanks to immunization, polio like smallpox may soon be eradicated. But did the trials of early polio vaccines trigger AIDS? The central thesis of Edward Hooper’s new book, The River, is that they did. Hooper argues that both AIDS viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, first infected humans via contaminated oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV). He claims these vaccines were grown in kidney cell cultures derived in the 1950s from chimpanzees and sooty mangabeys, respectively, that were infected with simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs). Although this notion has been explored before, no one previously has researched the history of polio vaccine trials and early AIDS cases so exhaustively. Hooper builds up layer upon layer of circumstantial evidence and plausible conjecture, until he declares: “The reader must make up his mind or her mind. I have made up mine.” Yet after having read his 858 pages of text and 175 pages of notes and references, I remain undecided on the origins of HIV.

The thing about a cure for AIDS is, it is the end stage of HIV which is a retro virus that infects cells and mutates, shutting down the immune system in the long term. What a normal person would shake off like a cold, could cause a person with AIDS to have a stay in hospital, as a result of the deterioration of the immune system. This also makes it very hard to come with a vaccine, apparently, as the virus mutates in the body.

On the plus side, the treatments have improved greatly from the time this surfaced, and it’s not necessarily the death sentence it once was. Availability.to said treatments, is another matter altogether. Drug companies have deep, deep pockets, and stacks of fancy public relations companies and lawyers to protect them, if they want to keep something quiet, they will.

Anyone heard of the grey goo theory?

It goes something along the lines of this (from my memory):

In the future for the purpose of medicine, Nanotechnology might be developed to cure illness, search and destroy cancers or viruses, being so small they would be able to float through the air and move with great ease they could identify these things and destroy them. The same technology could be used for war, tiny microscopic nanobots or whatever could be released up wind of an enemy so that they would be carried by wind to the enemy and kill silently and undetected.

The theory goes further than this; this technology could become advanced enough to replicate itself out of materials it comes across whilst its doing its job. Such a technology could be used in medicine to wipe out a type of illness from the planet or it could be used by some military for a more sinister purpose.

The ultimate conclusion of the theory is that the technology might malfunction and wipe out all life on earth by mistake.

Does that sound far fetched to you? Some people believe this, personally i don’t, but the theory has been around for a while.

By the time that mankind is intellectually developed enough to have this kind of nanotechnology, hopefully we should be intellectually developed enough to stop having warfare.

I have never stated such practices are the norm (which you imply).