@cryptogee, you pose a really good question. Couple things I thought I'd mention. (A.) the test for HIV varies depending on where you are located. I find that very sketchy, and think the tests should be uniform. (B.) AZT, which is what they initially used to treat HIV was developed to be a cancer drug, but it was killing off cancer patients too quickly, so they tried it for people with AIDS as an off-label use.

Since these people were dying anyways, they probably thought it was no harm, no foul to market the poison to them. The end result, the people who were dying, managed to continue to die, possibly with even more pain caused by the AZT.

Just read the warning on that label and ask yourself what good that would do if you gave it to a healthy person, let alone a dying person? To this day they still pretend that AZT was a good idea by including it in some of their cocktails at a far smaller dose.

I personally think from everything that I've read, that if AZT were to be given to a healthy adult without HIV, at the doses it was given to people in the early 80's, that it would no-doubt cause them to acquire an immune deficiency. It's some creepy stuff when you look into it.

As far as suppressed technologies are concerned, I recently saw an interview that Joe Rogan conducted with Mel Gibson and a doctor who practices in a specific type of Stem Cell therapy. It was very interesting; in fact it almost seems like a panacea. You can check that out here, if you're interested.

Apparently Gibson's father was reaching what may have been the end of his life in 2011. So Mel took him to have this controversial therapy, and he's still alive and kicking today at 99 years old. It really sounds like an interesting type of treatment that could be beneficial for many reasons, even anti aging.

As far as the ethics are concerned, it would be nice if they would stop practicing harmful medicine, and start to unleash some of the good stuff. I don't care how it would disrupt the market just so long as it works, and works well. It would be refreshing for a change.

As far as enjoying the fruits of something guilt free. I don't think you should deprive yourself of anything beneficial or feel guilty just because you have access and someone else doesn't. That would be like, not drinking clean water, because someone in the third world doesn't have access to clean water. If someone’s conscience bothered them that much they could send money to some poor village so that they could build a well.

Or for example if someone like Mel Gibson felt guilty about having access to life changing tech like that stem cell therapy. He could use his star power to shine light on it, in order to harness the power of the people's demand that they have access to it. Even that alone is beneficial, and I think that's exactly what he was doing there.

Either that or pay for someone to get the treatment who otherwise couldn't afford it. Allot of celebrities do that kind of thing, they don't like to advertise it because, they can't help everyone, but yeah charity is good, and it's a far better path to alleviate guilt, than it is to deprive oneself of quality of life.

I enjoyed your post, it really made me think!