I find this quite disturbing but hardly surprising. The reason I believe we will find it more difficult to find cures for these diseases then it actually should be are due to 2 factors one being business interests and the second being the moral high grounders.

We will be delayed in finding a cure for aids and other human afflictions because those companies investing their research budgets into diseases like these really don’t have it in their interest to find a universal cure because if they do -

1. The moral high grounders will expect and demand that the company give away its cure for free as there will be millions of people who can benefit from this break through but can not afford it. (They are morally right but it’s a catch 22)
Not only will then be expected to give it away for free in most parts of the world the drugs will be pirated anyway by government with 0 royalties going back to the company making the break through. (This is already rife today)

2. Since the above in all probability will happen you have to now put yourself in the shoes of the companies developing these drugs. Is it in their “economic” interest to create a cure for these diseases when they already make a lot of money from antidotes that prolong your life or reduce the amount of pain you feel. A universal cure will actually cause biotech companies big losses due to there being no need to buy their “life extension” products anymore

I think then only way round this is if governments are the ones researching the cures for these diseases as they don’t have profit as their goal.

easy times
I know what you mean and this thread is certainly well placesgiven there are many concerns about these people.
I dont know that we would convinct them on the higher moral ground issue however. It is all too easy while these torture chamers are hidden out for self gain to forget that there is no need to use animals in their research.
I will leave you a link you may also find interesting .

http://www.choosecrueltyfree.org.au/animaltests.html

by Dr Ray Greek MD

Many people are morally opposed to experiments on animals, even if they are of supposed medical benefit. Such people are often portrayed as wishing to sacrifice medical progress to avoid animal suffering. The government and the media dismiss their concerns by labelling them 'anti-science': a convenient, but totally false, stereotype. But what if there were no medical benefits from experiments on animals? What if they were actually an obstacle to medical progress: misleading scientists, harming patients by their unreliability and wasting precious funds that would be better spent on patient-oriented research

This link Animal research is saying - taken down I think- wonder why
VivisectionVanstone faces accusations of animal cruelty over her share in piggery Date Posted: 15 Nov 2006 A PIGGERY part-owned by the Immigration Minister, Amanda ...
www.animal-lib.org.au/subjects/subjects/vivisection.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar page

But PALE, there's two sides to every argument.

Overall I agree that animal testing probably doesn't do all that much, but I really don't know.

But to play devil's advocate for just a moment - logically, I can see that in some situations animal testing makes sense. Many of our greatest scientific discoveries have been extrapolated from experiments on mice and the like.

My question to you is, what if there is a strong benefit for people, but one that is derived from animal experimentation? You've made your views on animal cruelty clear, though I guess that just makes me wonder whether you would oppose it regardless...

AIDS is here to stay as long as people want to be gay or bi. Gods Creation, man, was Created to be with woman. One woman in one life, unless death cuts across that. Remarriage in then permitted. I believe cancer cures will probably come but no cures for AIDS. Its basis is sexual immorality. Thus under God, I believe, no cure.

I'm glad you do a fine job of discrediting yourself, Gibo.

It saves others the effort.

I'll file that one along with 'Harry Potter is evil witchcraft' and 'I see demons.'

How says there is no cure? Ofcourse there is not only one but a variety to choose from, it all depends where you live i.e. what nutrients your dna has been build up with. Country of birth, local food, un-fluoridated water and no-vacinations all play a role whether your dna has been built for survival.
Give an Aussie Aboriginal western food and drinks and see if he/she survives, there is your test we should put down on paper, no use making animals suffer now or later,all the data is right under our noses. But hey why bother to look at Aboriginal health even though they have been treated like test animals in the past (and still)?

"We will be delayed in finding a cure for aids and other human afflictions because those companies investing their research budgets into diseases like these really don’t have it in their interest to find a universal cure because if they do

Complete and utter BS. Any person that found a cure for any of those diseases would be an overnight millionaire. Trying to decide what to give away for free to poor people is hardly an argument against getting rich.